Rules of the game should be same....

Directly coming onto the necessity of the Bond, I have seen two contrasting situations in the company that I have worked for in the past.

In the first instance, one of the employees left the firm during the training period as he was offered a better salary and profile from the other firm. As per the company rules he was suppose to pay the stipulated amount of Rs. 1.25 lacs because he was breaching the bond (as per the bond he had to stay in the company for at least 18 months). He refused to pay that amount. Company declared him absconding and sent a notice to him but as expected the company was unable to take any action (because India law doesn’t permit that). They seized his experience certificate, but as the employee was just 3 months old in the company it didn’t bother him much. But then in cases where work experience certificate is of greater importance to the employee they are obliged to pay the amount in order to get back their certificate.

Now in second instance due to recession, company asked few of the fresh trainees to shift to its BPO division. It was not acceptable to few of them and they refused to join it. Company forced them to resign and most of them did (as they thought that it’s a better option than the previous one). They didn’t got any compensation for that except the experience letter.

Now after looking at the second instance it seems unfair on company’s part to ask employees to pay the amount specified in the bond when they were leaving for better job. I agree that companies do spend lot of resources in giving training to employees. And they should get the rights to take any action against individuals who breach the bond after enhancement of their skill set. But then rules of the game should be same for both the parties. Indian Law should permit a two way bond. So that way if company creates a condition of constructive discharge or release employees without any reason then they should be bound to pay the same amount as mentioned in the bond.