The bond for an employer is an assurance on behalf of the employee that he would remain for a stipulated period of time with the employers company and that the training imparted to him would be utilized by the employee for the company rather than any other company. The employer on his part looks for loyalty because he wants the training given to the employee which would enhance the knowledge and working of the employee to be utilized in his own company. The employer on his part not only invests on the employee in terms of money but also in terms of time and other resources so he would like to take the full advantage of this investment. But is making the employee sign a bond the only option left with the employers to test or ascertain the loyalty of its employee. Probably yes. Many cases have been seen in the past in which the employee has dumped the company as soon as he attained training from the company to look for other future alternatives or join the competitors of the first company. Last year a case was filed by a Pune based company which alleged that one of its employee after attaining certain pre-requisite training from it shifted its loyalty to a bigger multinational company. So does that mean that in present days is the employee using the training provided by the companies as an opportunity to add something to his CV or learn something to brighten his individual prospect rather than look for the companies interest simultaneously with individuals own interest. If this is the case then company has all the right to make the employee/trainee sign a bond as this would give the company some sense of security with regards to the employees. It would also keep a check on the attrition rate of the company as well as create more discipline in the organization with regards to the worker leaving the company. But is this the whole reality regarding the truth related to the bond.
Employees are the other party who are involved with the bond agreement and thus their opinion is also extremely critical. Signing a bond with the employers makes it obligatory for the employee to remain with the company for atleast a certain period of time with the company. But signing a bond agreement is believed to be more troublesome for the employee than employers because the employee is bounded with one company only which many say would limit the career opportunities of the individual. Thus many people think twice before signing a contract as they fell like a bonded laborer after signing the contract as there movement within the job is restricted. Also in many a cases the employees have to deposit a certain amount with the company like a deposit whereby it guarantees their loyalty towards the company. But for this many employees have to take loans from the bank and have to pay interest for the principal amount. Now in this case the employee is paying interest for such an amount which he is not using personally but to get training which would be used by the company for its own use as the enhanced skill of the worker would help the company. So this shows that there is a clear advantage to the employers with regards to the bond contract. Many a times it is seen that the advantage enjoyed by the companies in such contracts is mis utilized by companies. Last year an employee filed a case in the Delhi high court against a Chennai based IT company. The company had made the employee sign a bond which said that the employee would undergo a training programme in the USA for 1 year and that upon his return he would not join any other company for a period of 2 years. It also said that if the employee joins any other company within the two year period he would be liable to pay Rs 300000 to the company. The employee alleged that while in his training in the USA he was given training in the night schedules and made to work for 17 to 18 hours which affected his health negatively. The employee said that he wanted to leave the company on health grounds after returning to india but the company demanded 1000000 now as it alleged that the employee wanted to dump the company not because of health reason but that the employee had received a better offer of payment from a competitor ,which the employee denied. The employee said that the reason for him leaving the company was only health reason and nothing else as he did not know at the time of signing the contract that he would have to work for such long hours as it was not mentioned in the contract. So what should he do now? Looking from this angle it looks like the bond contract is unjust for the employees and that they get trapped in the job. This is an extremely delicate issue on the part of both the parties.
In the end it could be said that a bond contract is essential now a days for the companies as they try to arrest the attrition rate in the company. But having said that it should also be mentioned that the companies should treat each case differently according to the situation and should not exploit the employees on the contract. An employee on his part should maintain a certain degree of loyalty towards the company as it would be unjust on his part to just look at the career opportunities only and leaving the companies interest on the backburner. So it has to be said that every party has its self interest first but a middle way should always be devised to address the fears of both the parties. BOND is a reality of modern business and it needs to be accepted by both the parties with keeping the interest of both in mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment