The Bond of ‘Bond’!!!

It’s difficult to find a job. However as we can see it, it is even more difficult to quit it! The initial happiness and elation disappear and what follows it is a continuum of mental stress for the employee. As is evident from the cases presented in the original post, the employers leave no stone unturned to make sure that the employee spends in the organisation atleast 100% return on their investment. As my colleagues rightly point out that most of the employees who are made to sign these agreements are fresh graduates who are more than happy to just receive an offer letter. Not only they are not in the position to bargain, but also, they are not even aware of their power to do so. Consider what Subhrajit Mishra has highlighted in case of Asatyam, making a simple graduate pay a hefty sum of 2 lakhs!! Consider again the case of IMFL which expects the trainees to pay the full bond amount even if they leave one day before the bond expiry. Another example that I will like to give is that of my friend who is about to complete his 2 years bond period in July. He has an offer of admission from a very renowned B-school. The dilemma he faces is that the course starts in June which means he will have to quit before the completion of bond period. This implies that he will have to pay a certain amount, as written in the bond, to obtain his much coveted work- experience certificate. All these conditions make the bond very rigid and hence harder for the employee to leave. Many companies also require the employees to serve a notice period after resigning. In those cases if the new employer is not willing to wait for the employee, then he has no option but to continue with the previous job only!

Hence to agree with most of them in this forum, it is a clear attempt to place restriction on job mobility, and an attempt to create ‘Bonded Labour’. But is it always so?

Analyzing the concept of bonds in this scenario we can see both pros and cons. As Nishit points out that it is indeed a deterrent for job switchers who use each organisation as a progressive step in their career ladder. And in this competitive environment it is a pretty natural instinct on the part of the organisation to protect their interest in order to survive in this business world. Yet again, there is also a silver streak in this cloud for the employees. By virtue of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, “to create a contract there must be common intention of forming legal obligation”. (Source: www.netlawman.co.in) This means that during the period of the bond, the employer cannot show the employee door, unless for reason like indiscipline or loss to the organization.

To analyze it from a slightly different perspective, I would like to quote an article from assureconsulting.com, which says that this move on the part of the employer can be seen as mistrust on the conduct of the employee from the day one and hence could be detrimental to building the culture of ‘trust and loyalty’ in the organisation. Moreover this move can be seen as an attempt to place restriction on the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution for the employee to move anywhere in India, take vocations of one's choice and earn better salary packages and promotions . (Source: www.assureconsulting.com/articles/bonds)

Employers should not forget that quitting job may not always be always for better career prospects. What if the employee wants to pursue further studies or may be has some personal obligations. Asatyam does promises to relax the bond if the employee leaves for reason for pursuing higher education, but do the other employers follow the suit? In another case, may be the employee realises that his interest lay elsewhere and wants to leave on that ground. Would that employee be productive if he is forced to work for the employer irrespective of his disinterest, and his only incentive being completion of the notice period? Hence these bonds are nothing short of a necessary evil! I would like to conclude by suggesting few points. A better option can be to make the bonds less rigid for the employees who have served a considerable amount of time after completing their training with the organisation. Just in the way Dalco asks it employee to make proportionate payment after a period of one year, or like what Sharanya has talked about Accenture in her post! In this way both the interest of the employee and the employer can be protected. And also, consideration should be given to employees who want to leave the organisation for some genuine reasons, of course if the reasons are valid.

Last but not the least, not many employees would want to leave an organisation that provides them a challenging and competitive yet friendly environment. So the focus on the part of the employer should be to create and harbour such an environment in the work place that the bonds get deeper even without the ‘Bond’!!