I do not know what exactly a training 'loan' agreement is. Under any circumstance, an employer is not supposed to collect a blank check 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 check is issued by the employer in favor of the employee for services rendered by the latter for the former. Unfortunately, this is just the reverse of the transaction. Therefore, the check is presumed to have been issued without consideration (anything in return) and forcibly.
An employer is legally right to claim any training cost incurred by him when an employee leaves the organization without giving the employer sufficient time to get it back. But this does not mean that he can realize the sum by any means. Instead of allowing the employer to draw the amount, if the employee had countermanded the payment of the check and subsequently the check is dishonored by the bank, the employer would not have any remedy under the Negotiable Instruments Act as there is no sufficient reason to believe that the check was issued by the employee willfully and with valid consideration. Training cost without any detailed sessions of training will not maintain the case.
Any agreement that restricts the freedom of taking up employment is invalid. The employer has played a safe role by insisting on a training bond with an agreement for the repayment of training costs 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 labor practice on the part of the employer. This matter has features of both labor 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