Hi, I worked in a leading X MNC company as a software engineer. I joined as a fresher but, due to some reasons, I absconded from the company. Now, it's been three months since I left the company after working for three months. I received three months' salary even without working. Now, they are asking me to come back to the company, but I am not interested. I signed a bond agreement of 1 lakh to work for one year and also received training initially.
What are the consequences if I don't go back? I don't want to continue, and I don't have the money to pay either. I don't require an experience letter. Will they blacklist me, and if so, at the company level or in NSC?
Please assist.
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
What are the consequences if I don't go back? I don't want to continue, and I don't have the money to pay either. I don't require an experience letter. Will they blacklist me, and if so, at the company level or in NSC?
Please assist.
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Though employment bonds are illegal, you are bound to compensate the company for the amount they spent on your training (as you said you received training). Similarly, if you have received a salary for three months 'without working' in the company, why can't you compromise? Since you admit that you have absconded, why don't you pay the actual amount back to the company and settle the issue? Now, being an engineer, should you fall down to the attitude of a worker? These are the general questions asked when you raise it as a dispute. Nothing may happen if you do not respond to the letters sent by the company asking you to pay the bond amount of Rs 1 lakh. Similarly, nothing may happen in the very near future if they blacklist you. But think about the long run and decide.
Regards,
Madhu T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(1)
Amend(0)
4510Regards,
Madhu T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
My doubt is, why is an employment bond illegal? In order to retain an employee during the training period and after the training period, the employer needs to hold the employee. Most industries require an agreement to be signed by the employee or to retain their originals until the completion of their tenure. In certain cases, an employee resigns from the company without a relieving order (breach of agreement), and the employer has taken legal action against the breach of contract and collected the entire amount through court. In this case, the employee must be in a position to pay the fees of the employer also.
Other points, I agree with Mr. Madhu. Regards, RekhaBhanu
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Other points, I agree with Mr. Madhu. Regards, RekhaBhanu
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Rakesh,
There are two sides to it - one is legal and the other is ethics, and one more is the right to choose. Probably you got a better offer and without notice, you stopped. You may escape from the bond, but legally you are still an absconder for not having resigned from the job. Because of this, you are keeping a chance of a criminal case open (what happens if they file an FIR against you, saying you are absconding with the company's money, documents, etc.). I don't think you would decide to go back to them. Maybe you should resign, quoting some valid reason like you are seriously ill or your great-grandfather died and you have to take care of his heirs, and your last working day should be treated as your relieving date. (Incidentally, how did you come to know they want you back?)
Kumar S.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
There are two sides to it - one is legal and the other is ethics, and one more is the right to choose. Probably you got a better offer and without notice, you stopped. You may escape from the bond, but legally you are still an absconder for not having resigned from the job. Because of this, you are keeping a chance of a criminal case open (what happens if they file an FIR against you, saying you are absconding with the company's money, documents, etc.). I don't think you would decide to go back to them. Maybe you should resign, quoting some valid reason like you are seriously ill or your great-grandfather died and you have to take care of his heirs, and your last working day should be treated as your relieving date. (Incidentally, how did you come to know they want you back?)
Kumar S.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Rekha Babu,
I agree that there are employees who abscond without even letting the employer know anything or without proper handover. But what I have said is that employment bond is illegal as per law, and I am not the law-making authority, but the law is made just to avoid the bonded labor system, which had lots of drawbacks, and due to which even the second generations of the indebted persons are forced to work. The matter is very serious in the agriculture sector in many parts of India, especially in the areas where human rights are not well known among the labor class. Perhaps the system is not in place in Kerala because of the awareness about their rights. Of course, it has put in its own drawbacks in Kerala, which is considered to be the cradle of Trade Unions and collective bargaining.
It is right that the employer will always think that his employees should work with him always. But when the employer fails to keep up the promises given to the candidate at the time of his entry, why don't the employees think of leaving him? Is it proper that when an employee decides to leave, the employer can retain the certificates and spoil his career? If any employer is doing so, I must say that it is wrong and that will be deemed as bonded labor. Even collecting the certificates as a precaution is a bad sign. Why should we collect it, because we are in fear that the employee will leave when he gets a "better" opportunity? Why don't we ourselves give him that "better" opportunity? We know that we cannot retain labor, and the labor knows that we will lose the job at any time.
Now in highly skilled jobs, will any employer demand that the employee(rather professional) should surrender his certificates and should sign a bond for three years or pay such high amounts? No, because the demand is from the employer side and in the supply side, there is scarcity. That means only where supply is plenty and demand is less, the employers will force a bond, and it is that phenomena which compels one to sign a bond.
Therefore, a generalization is not possible, and we should not blindly say that we can go ahead with collecting certificates and signing employment bonds. Labor Laws are made to benefit the poor employees, and we are supposed to follow it. The Laws are made to protect their interests.
Regards,
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I agree that there are employees who abscond without even letting the employer know anything or without proper handover. But what I have said is that employment bond is illegal as per law, and I am not the law-making authority, but the law is made just to avoid the bonded labor system, which had lots of drawbacks, and due to which even the second generations of the indebted persons are forced to work. The matter is very serious in the agriculture sector in many parts of India, especially in the areas where human rights are not well known among the labor class. Perhaps the system is not in place in Kerala because of the awareness about their rights. Of course, it has put in its own drawbacks in Kerala, which is considered to be the cradle of Trade Unions and collective bargaining.
It is right that the employer will always think that his employees should work with him always. But when the employer fails to keep up the promises given to the candidate at the time of his entry, why don't the employees think of leaving him? Is it proper that when an employee decides to leave, the employer can retain the certificates and spoil his career? If any employer is doing so, I must say that it is wrong and that will be deemed as bonded labor. Even collecting the certificates as a precaution is a bad sign. Why should we collect it, because we are in fear that the employee will leave when he gets a "better" opportunity? Why don't we ourselves give him that "better" opportunity? We know that we cannot retain labor, and the labor knows that we will lose the job at any time.
Now in highly skilled jobs, will any employer demand that the employee(rather professional) should surrender his certificates and should sign a bond for three years or pay such high amounts? No, because the demand is from the employer side and in the supply side, there is scarcity. That means only where supply is plenty and demand is less, the employers will force a bond, and it is that phenomena which compels one to sign a bond.
Therefore, a generalization is not possible, and we should not blindly say that we can go ahead with collecting certificates and signing employment bonds. Labor Laws are made to benefit the poor employees, and we are supposed to follow it. The Laws are made to protect their interests.
Regards,
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
@Rakesh : I don’t know what could be the circumstances for you to abscond from your commitment. This incident shows your ethical standards.
@login Miracle: your suggestion is in poor taste.
@Madhu TK : Can there be a possibility that, Agreement bond would be specifically related to training cost. Many a times company make employee sign a training bond agreement to serve company for number of months or years or pay training cost.
From Kuwait, Salmiya
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
@login Miracle: your suggestion is in poor taste.
@Madhu TK : Can there be a possibility that, Agreement bond would be specifically related to training cost. Many a times company make employee sign a training bond agreement to serve company for number of months or years or pay training cost.
From Kuwait, Salmiya
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I appreciate Madhu TK’s point of view on employment bonds and its misuse by employers. At the same time, there has to be a another POV towards urban professionals and investment of firms on their employee. Least an employer expects from employee is a decent notice period which can be politely negotiated as per mutual agreement between the parties. This cases and issues are discussed empteen times on this forum.
The acceptable advise given by most of seniors are : To adhere to company policy and leave employers on a good note by following procedure of exit.
From Kuwait, Salmiya
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The acceptable advise given by most of seniors are : To adhere to company policy and leave employers on a good note by following procedure of exit.
From Kuwait, Salmiya
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
A contract to reimburse training costs is always valid. Therefore, an employer can very well recover any costs incurred by him towards training given to the employee. That does not mean that the employee should work with the employer for such a long period until the cost is fully recovered, but the employee can leave the employer by paying the actual cost incurred by the employer.
Regards,
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Regards,
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Madhu,
I agree with Rekha's opinion. The contract of employment is a legal document, and before signing it, everybody should think thoroughly. Once you sign, the terms and conditions are applicable to you. In this case, he violated the contract of employment; hence, he is eligible for any fine mentioned in his contract of employment.
The employer is offering a job based on faith in his document and spending money on training. After gaining experience from the current company, candidates are leaving the organization, citing fake reasons. In the end, we must adhere to the manners and ethics of business.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I agree with Rekha's opinion. The contract of employment is a legal document, and before signing it, everybody should think thoroughly. Once you sign, the terms and conditions are applicable to you. In this case, he violated the contract of employment; hence, he is eligible for any fine mentioned in his contract of employment.
The employer is offering a job based on faith in his document and spending money on training. After gaining experience from the current company, candidates are leaving the organization, citing fake reasons. In the end, we must adhere to the manners and ethics of business.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am not against the practice of demanding training costs. (Please read the post carefully) However, the law of the land states that a contract which compels one to continue with an employer is unlawful. There may be some genuine cases, but simultaneously, there are companies that coerce employees to stay by violating laws and not fulfilling promises made at the time of their joining. Often, the bonds are one-sided, created by the employer only, and employees are pressured to sign due to the high elasticity of the labor supply. Conversely, where labor is scarce, no bond will be effective.
Regards, Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Regards, Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Madhu, i am agree with your opinion but we are discussing the live case of absconding not others,please.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Madhu
I agree with your POV, that employers also misuse binding laws to exploit employees. But with changing times, and demand supply dynamics of labor market, there has to be a review in law. I don’t support the idea of enslaving bond, but their has to be obligation on employer and employee both to honor terms and conditions on signing employment contract.
Increasingly employees are becoming spoilt and low tolerance levels towards employer’s efforts. Absconding has become norm and acceptable practice. Companies are finding many absconders in the market, that they have to lower their requirement for relieving letter and accept the employee in spite of bad previous employment records. Further fueling acceptability of this unethical act.
From Kuwait, Salmiya
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I agree with your POV, that employers also misuse binding laws to exploit employees. But with changing times, and demand supply dynamics of labor market, there has to be a review in law. I don’t support the idea of enslaving bond, but their has to be obligation on employer and employee both to honor terms and conditions on signing employment contract.
Increasingly employees are becoming spoilt and low tolerance levels towards employer’s efforts. Absconding has become norm and acceptable practice. Companies are finding many absconders in the market, that they have to lower their requirement for relieving letter and accept the employee in spite of bad previous employment records. Further fueling acceptability of this unethical act.
From Kuwait, Salmiya
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
HR Concern for Employer n Employee.doc
Contract employee & Principal employer 2017.pdf
Employee & Employer.ppt