I do not know what exactly is training 'loan' agreement. Under any circumstance an employer is not suppose to collect a blank cheque and present it for payment without intimation to the drawer (employee). Here in this case, the relationship between the drawer and the payee is not debtor and creditor but employer and employee. It can be admitted that if a cheque is issued by employer in favour of employee for services rendered by the latter for the former. Unfortunately, this is just reverse of transaction. Therefore, the cheque is presumed to have been issued without consideration (any thing in return) and forcibly. An employer is legally right to claim any training cost incurred by him when an employee leaves the organisation without giving the employer sufficient time to get it back. But this does not mean that he can realise the sum by any means. Instead of allowing the employer to draw the amount, if the employee had countermanded the payment of cheque and subsequently the cheque is dishouned by the bank, the employer would not have any remedy under Negotiable Instruments Act as there is no sufficient reason to believe that the cheque was issued by the employee willfully and with valid consideration. Trainig cost without any detailed sessions of training will not maintain the case. As any agreement which restricts freedom of taking up employment is invalid, the employer has played a safe role by insisting a training bond with an agreement for repayment of training cost as if the employee has availed a 'loan' from the employer. This is what I understand from the post. But this is a kind of cheating and a rude unfair labour practice on the part of employer. This matter has features of both labour dispute and criminal malpractice. Therefore, file a counter defending the charges. Don't pay any more money. Let the court decide. I am sure that if you defend the case, the employer will come for settlement. Regards, Madhu.T.K