What Happens If I Don't Return to My Job After Absconding? Seeking Advice on Consequences

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.

Consequences of Not Returning

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.

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?

Considerations for Engineers

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

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

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?)

Regards,
Kumar S.

The Legality of Employment Bonds and Employee Rights

I agree that there are employees who abscond without even letting the employer know anything or without proper handover. However, what I have said is that employment bonds are illegal as per law. I am not the law-making authority, but the law is made to avoid the bonded labor system, which had many drawbacks. Due to this system, even the second generations of indebted persons are forced to work. The matter is very serious in the agriculture sector in many parts of India, especially in 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 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 shouldn't the employees think of leaving? 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 will be deemed as bonded labor. Even collecting the certificates as a precaution is a bad sign. Why should we collect them? Because we 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 sign a bond for three years or pay such high amounts? No, because the demand is from the employer side, and on 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 phenomenon 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 them. The laws are made to protect their interests.

Regards,
Madhu.T.K

I don't know what could be the circumstances for you to abscond from your commitment. This incident shows your ethical standards.

Your suggestion is in poor taste.

Possibility of Agreement Bond Related to Training Cost

Can there be a possibility that the agreement bond would be specifically related to training costs? Many times, companies make employees sign a training bond agreement to serve the company for a number of months or years or pay the training cost.

I appreciate Madhu TK's point of view on employment bonds and their misuse by employers. At the same time, there has to be another point of view towards urban professionals and the investment of firms in their employees. The least an employer expects from an employee is a decent notice period, which can be politely negotiated as per mutual agreement between the parties. These cases and issues are discussed umpteen times on this forum.

Advice from Senior Members

The acceptable advice given by most of the seniors is to adhere to company policy and leave employers on a good note by following the procedure of exit.

Regards

Reimbursement of Training Costs

A contract to reimburse training costs is always valid. Therefore, an employer can very well recover any costs incurred by them towards training given to the employee. This does not mean that the employee should work with the employer for such a long period until the cost is fully recovered. However, the employee can leave the employer by paying the actual cost incurred by the employer.

Regards,
Madhu.T.K

I agree with Rekha's opinion. The contract of employment is a legal document, and before signing it, everyone 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.

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

I agree with your point of view that employers also misuse binding laws to exploit employees. However, with changing times and the demand-supply dynamics of the labor market, there needs to be a review of the law. I don't support the idea of an enslaving bond, but there has to be an obligation on both the employer and the employee to honor the terms and conditions upon signing an employment contract.

Increasingly, employees are becoming spoiled and have low tolerance levels towards employers' efforts. Absconding has become a norm and an acceptable practice. Companies are finding many absconders in the market, which forces them to lower their requirement for a relieving letter and accept the employee despite bad previous employment records, further fueling the acceptability of this unethical act.