Legal Action Against Company - CiteHR
Cite.Co is a repository of information created by your industry peers and experienced seniors sharing their experience and insights.
Join Us and help by adding your inputs. Contributions From Other Members Follow Below...
Mr Luthra has given several case references which can form precedences in many ways.
Each case is unique and may have variations.
The main point to e understood is that an employer after offering a job and getting acceptance from employee cannot revoke his offer.
When a job is offered and accepted,it becomes binding contract.
The case of Chethan fall in this category.
Legally the friend of Chethan is covered and the company has no legal right to revoke offer of job.

The ratio of decisions and relevant statutory provisions can be culled out from the following passages apart from what has been stated earlier:

Orissa High Court

Biswanath Das And Ors. vs Ramesh Chandra Patnaik And Anr. on 9 August, 1978

Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act provides for compensation for breach of contracts whether they are commercial contracts or service contracts.

20. The substantive portion of Section 73 lays down the basic rule that a party who suffers by the breach is entitled to receive from the party in breach "compensation for. any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach." The explanation to the section lays down that in estimating the loss or damages arising from the breach of contract, the means which existed of remedying the inconvenience caused by the non-performance of the contract must be taken into account.

21. The Supreme Court in the case of Murlidhar Chiranjilal v. Harischandra Dwarkadas and Anr. , examined the scope of Section 73 and the explanation thereto while dealing with a case arising out of a breach of contract of sale of goods and laid down the principles on which damages for the breach of contracts have to be determined. The principles have been stated in para. (9) of the judgment in the following terms:

The two principles on which damages in such cases are calculated are well-settled. The first is that, as far as possible, he who has proved a breach of a bargain to supply what he contracted to get is to be placed, as far as money can do it, in as good a situation as if the contract had been performed; but this principle is qualified by a second, which imposes on a plaintiff the duty of taking all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss consequent on the breach, and debars him from claiming any part of the damage which is due to his neglect to take such steps : (British Westing-house Electric and Manufacturing Co. Limited v. Underground Electric Ry. Co. of London [1912] A.C. 673 at p. 683. These two principles also follow from the law as laid down in Section 73 read with the explanation thereof."

The decision of Apex Court in Kayastha Pathshala has been followed in some cases while awarding compensation of three years wages to a person who was declined to join.

In one of queries when the person declined to join the company, it was answered by the expert:

Signed a job offer but not joining

Edison, NJ | October 21, 2013 10:17pm

Hi Experts,

I recently signed a job offer for which the start date is with in 2 weeks. But now I got a job offer which is local to me. Is it okay if i don't join the job for which the signed the job offer? I know ethically it is not correct, but will I be having any legal issues...

Attorney Answers 3

________________________________________

1.



Allan E Richardson

Employment / Labor Attorney

o Woodbury, NJ

o NJ licensed

That depends on the specific terms of the offer and whether you agreed. If the offer can be construed as a contract committing you to work for Company A and you don't show up, that conceivably could amount to a breach of contract. No one can tell for sure without reviewing the facts, including the offer letter or email AND all communications leading up to it. Many lawyers, myself included, will review documents sent via email and conduct a teleconference, payable by credit card. Good luck.

A response to a question posted on Avvo is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. It is informational only. Allan E. Richardson, Esq. Richardson, Galella & Austermuhl 142 Emerson ST., Woodbury, NJ 08096 856-579-7045."

Thanks

Sushil


This discussion thread is closed. If you want to continue this discussion or have a follow up question, please post it on the network.
Add the url of this thread if you want to cite this discussion.






About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service



All rights reserved @ 2020 Cite.Co™