Skip to main content

Post Employment Restrictive Covenants- How Much Enforceable?


The legislations governing several aspects of the employer-employee relationship are so complicated and ambiguous, that they yield in litigation rather than to provide clear way out. Moreover, the most important bone of contention w.r.t. protection of confidential information, non-disclosure and non-solicitation have not yet been addressed through legislation in India, thus warranting recourse to judicial interpretation and common law.
In an attempt to protect their interests, trade secrets, confidential information, every employer execute employment agreement and impose post employment restrictive covenants pertaining to manner in which the employees are required to serve the notice period, comply with the exit formality, non-solicitation, non-compete and others before finally exit from the employer.
However, to enforce post employment restrictive covenants had become a challenging task for the employers. In our this article- “ Post Employment Restrictive Covenants- How Much Enforceable?” we seek to provide an overview of the steps to be adopted by the employer and how to address a conflict situation with its employees and to enforce post employment covenants.
The legal recourse for employer and future course of action are discussed as below:
1.     Pre- Conflict/Litigation- Course of Action:
At this stage, following documentation and course of action to be adopted to prevent/reduce any future conflict or issue with the present/future employees:
a.     Execution of Employment Letter which includes but not limited to exit mechanism; post-employment restriction and covenants; non-compete; non-solicitation; confidentiality obligation, IP protection. The post employment restrictive clause need to be draft with a balance keeping in view of Section 27 of Indian Contract Act and recent judicial approach. As Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, prohibits any kind of unreasonable restraint on trade, employment and profession.
b.     Non-Circumvention & Non-Disclosure Agreement- An Additional protection layer for securing the interest of the Company including confidentiality, non-solicitation, IP and data protection.
c.      Service Bond- To include additional penalty clause for violation of IP; non-compete; non-solicitation; confidentiality; data; trade secret; client details.; post employment covenants; to join/engage any company or indulge in any competitive business only after no dues clearance and formal exit from the employer.
d.     Employee Handbook- Beside general employment conditions it shall include but not limited to exit mechanism; imposing garden leave; post employment covenants; clearance of any investigation prior to exit from the Company.
2.     Upon Breach of Terms of Employment: Separate Legal Notice to employee & new employer for breach of terms of conditions including but not limited to non-compete & non-solicitation. Also, a Cease & Desist Letter  for tortious interference in business to new employer for “using the ex-employee” for violation of breach of terms including but not limited to non-compete; non-solicitation, data & IP.
3.     Litigation: On the event of failure of the above-mentioned course of actions, the employer should initiate a litigation with keeping mind of the following points:
a.     File a criminal/civil suit against the ex-employee depending upon the breach of terms and violations along with filing a police complaint depending upon the facts of the conflict;
b.     File a criminal/civil suit against the new employer of ex-employee:
In general, a question is always  raised by the companies/employers that- whether a suit or any action can be initiated against the new employer of the ex-employee of the Company, who had breached the terms of his employment & post employment covenant with the Company.
On review of past decisions made by Supreme Court and other High Courts, in several adjudicated matters, new employer had been successfully sued in Court of Law, where the new employer is aware of the breach of terms & violations by its new employee (ex-employee of the Company). The new employer can be sued for tempting, luring and assisting ex-employee to breach a contractual obligation and shall be held liable for interference of contractual relationship between ex-employee & the Company.
Enforceability of Notice Period
For serving notice period, in one of the case, Chairman and Managing Director, India Airlines vs. Binod Kumar Sinha and ors[1] hon’ble Supreme Court has held that – “An employee when joins service is subject to certain terms and conditions of service and he cannot quit the employment without giving requisite notice to the employer. But what should be the duration of a reasonable notice in such circumstances is a matter to be decided in each case depending upon the exigencies, needs or necessities and the essentiality of the service concerned.”
Other decisions by hon’ble Supreme Court:
1.     Thus, if an employee does not serve the notice period by working for the duration of the notice period, the employer may not have a decree from the court asking specific performance of the covenant to the effect that the employee would have to work for the notice period duration. But instead as a remedy to the employer, the court may grant damages for breach of contract.[2]
2.     Since enforceability of the notice period is not an option available with the employers, and they may only claim damages in case of illegal termination of employment contract by the employee, it is pertinent to understand the extent of damages that can be claimed.[3]
Compensation for not serving Notice Period
1.     In relation to employee abruptly leaving the Company (without serving the notice period), Andhra Pradesh High Court[4] held that- “such action by the employee did not cause any damage or loss to the Company and it would be unreasonable to acquire 2,00,000/- from employee. An amount of 1,00,000/- was fixed by the Court as reasonable damages taking into consideration the period of work and the fact that no actual loss was caused to the Company.”
2.     In one of the leading case, Union of India and Anr. vs. Tulsiram Patel and Ors.[5] w.r.t. compensation & enforceability of notice period, the hon’ble Supreme Court has held that- “Whether the contract of service is for a fixed period or not, if it contains a provision for its termination by notice, it can be so terminated. If there is no provision for giving a notice and the contract is not for a fixed period, the law implies an obligation to give a reasonable notice. Where no notice in the first case or no reasonable notice in the second case is given, the contract is wrongfully terminated and such wrongful termination will give rise to a claim for damages.”
To prove tortious interference against the new employer, following points need to prove:
a.     A valid non-compete exists between former employer and employee;
b.     The hiring employer had knowledge of the non-compete;
c.      The hiring employer caused a breach of the non-compete by hiring the employee;
d.     The hiring employer has no legal justification for causing the breach;
e.     The former employer has realized the damages
In one of the landmark cases[6], the accused, an ex-employee of Company A had resigned & joined Company B after final clearance from Company A. During his course of exit interview, he had continuously maintained that he would not be joining any company which was in direct competition with Company A. He also agreed that all the confidential information acquired by him during his tenure of work shall be kept confidential at all times. However, two weeks later, it came to the knowledge of Company A that he had joined Company B, which was its direct competitor. Later it was also discovered that the accused had transferred or downloaded various confidential information of Company A into his personal email id. Screenshots of the email id of the accused was produced by Company A which showed that such information was passed on to Company B. Thus, the Court was of the view that such act amounted to hacking under S.66 of the IT Act along with cheating, dishonestly inducing of property & breach of trust under penal provisions.

Moreover, in some of the earlier cases adjudicated at High Courts & Supreme Court, it has been held by the learned Courts that- “A reasonable restriction on non-solicitation for carrying on business or employment with new employer by utilizing the list of clients/customer is valid.”

In addition to the above options, what steps can employer take in advance to protect against a breach by an employee?
*      Review your standard contractual documentation to ensure that it operates as effectively as it can to protect your business.
*      Consider amending restrictive covenants to be sure (i) that they apply both during and after the employment and (ii) that they go no further than is reasonably necessary to protect your legitimate business interests. If they go further than is reasonably necessary, employer will not be able to enforce them.
*      Review confidentiality restrictions to ensure that they specifically protect the types of confidential information which are key to your business.
*      Consider whether to include within the contracts of employment of your senior employees an express duty of disclosure of matters which are adverse to your interests. An express duty tends to be easier to enforce and will act as more of a deterrent to employees.
*      Check that your standard contracts of employment include a garden leave provision. A garden leave clause can give the employer the right to put an employee who is on notice of termination on garden leave and to prevent him from attending premises, contacting clients or undertaking any business activity.
*      Ensure that the contract makes clear that the length of any post-termination restrictive covenants inclusive of garden leave clause.
For any further details and other legal aspects of enforcement of restrictive post employment covenants and to get your employees to serve the notice period along with compliance of non-compete & non-solicitation or any clarifications, please feel free to connect with us at admin@equicorplegal.com / 08448824659.




[1] AIR 2001 SC 3988
[2] Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Badri Nath Dixit, (1991) 3 SCC 54
[3] S.S. Shetty V. Bharat Nidhi Ltd.AIR 1958 SC 12
[4] Satyam Computer Services Limited v. Ladella Ravichander, MANU/AP/0416/2011
[5] AIR 1985 SC 1416
[6] Abhinav Gupta v. State of Haryan 2008 Cr LJ 4356

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

PSARA License: To Start a Private Security Agency Business in India

Private Security Agency business is one of the most sought and rapid growing business in India with huge demand and potential. Due to ever evolving demand for private security by industry & business segments, the Private Security Agency business is growing for more than 20% and there is still huge untapped market still wide open for the future ventures. Today in any and every aspect, private security has an important role to play, whether its transfer of cash to ATM, transportation of valuables or protection to key members of business conglomerates. Any Private Security Agency cannot commence its business and operations in India without procurement of license under Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 also known as PSARA License . PSARA License is obtained state wise & is valid for 5 years and had to be renewed after every 5 years. The government fees for PSARA License is as following: 1.        For one (1) District- Rs. 5,000/- 2.        For more th

Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFC)

A Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) is a  company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of loans and advances, acquisition of shares stock/bonds/debentures/securities issued by Government or local authority or other securities of like marketable nature, leasing, hire-purchase, insurance business, chit business but does not include any institution whose principal business is that of agriculture activity, industrial activity, sale/purchase/construction of immovable property. A non-banking institution which is a company and which has its principal business of receiving deposits under any scheme or arrangement or any other manner, or lending in any manner is also a non-banking financial company (Residuary non-banking company). Advantages of NBFC a)       it can provide loans and credit facilities, b)       it can trade in  money market instruments c)       it can do wealth management such as Managing portfolios of stocks and shares d)     

Investment Frauds by Investment Advisers

Today driven by the promise of higher returns than the saving accounts or fixed deposits, most of the small and retail investors are moving their investments under the guidance of Investment Advisers. “ Investment Advisers ” means any person, who for consideration, is engaged in the business of providing investment advice to clients or other persons or group of persons and includes any person who holds out himself as an investment adviser, by whatever name called. Investment Advisers who make public appearance or make recommendations or offer an opinion concerning securities or public offers through public media while making recommendations through public media are required to comply with the relevant applicable laws. What is an Investment Advice: - “ Investment Advice”  is an advice relating to investing in, purchasing, selling or otherwise dealing in securities or investment products, and advice on investment portfolio containing securities or investment products, whether

Types of Companies under New Companies Act-2013

With new testament of Corporate law in force has introduced several different types of companies with special features. ONE PERSON COMPANY (OPC) One Person Company is defined in Sub- Section 62 of Section 2 of The Companies Act, 2013, which reads as follows: 'One Person Company means a company which has only one member' It shall also be important to note that Section 3 classifies OPC as a Private Company for all the legal purposes with only one member. All the provisions related to the private company are applicable to an OPC, unless otherwise expressly excluded. Ø   Only a natural person who is an Indian citizen and resident in India- ü   shall be eligible to incorporate a One Person Company; ü   shall be a nominee for the sole member of a One Person Company. Ø   No person shall be eligible to incorporate more than a One Person Company or become nominee in more than one such company. Ø   No minor shall become member or nominee of the One Person Company

NCLT has Exclusive Jurisdiction for all the Company Matters

In deciding an appeal in the matter of MAIF Investment India PTE Ltd. v/s Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited & Ors ., Company Appeal (AT) No. 334 of 2018, NCLAT has reviewed and decided on the issue of exclusive jurisdiction of NCLT in all the company matters and to bar the jurisdiction of civil courts including   complex and contentious one. The appeal was against the order given by NCLT, Hyderabad, where the NCLT, Hyderabad bench declined to entertain the petition under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 for seeking a rectification in the register of members. The alleged dispute involved conversion of compulsory convertible debentures without requisite consent and quorum. NCLT, Hyderabad dismissed the petition stating the reason that issue raised were complex or contentious issue which required the examination of the Arbitration Act, 1996 & Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. While dismissing the petition, NCLT, Hyderabad had relied on Supreme Court’s 1998 judge

Legal Obligations of Technology Service Providers as Intermediaries

A database of millions of customers including their contact details are found freely accessible online and are available for sale at a very nominal price at various online social media platforms has brought a serious and basic question in focus- who all can be held responsible and accountable for such unauthorize and illegal acts? Prima facie , the person who is selling the database is responsible under the eyes of law, but do the technology services providers or the platform where such database is been listed, owes any obligation to the customers and can be held responsible for unauthorize acts by a third party on their platform? The technology service providers or the online platform operators are commonly known as “ Intermediaries ”. In India, these technology service providers or Intermediaries are governed by the provisions of Information Technology Act, 2000 (“ IT Act ”) along with Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 (“ Intermediary Rules ”)

Nidhi Companies in India

This article enumerates the brief transaction procedure involved in the establishment of a Nidhi Company and the laws relating to Nidhi Company in force in India. It shall be noted that the activities described hereunder covers various relevant legislations, regulations and rules, for the time being in force in India and the legal entity has to obtain approval/register itself with Ministry of Corporate Affairs (“ MCA ”). Preface In the Indian financial sector, Nidhi Company refers to any mutual benefit society notified by the MCA. They are created mainly for cultivating the habit of thrift and savings amongst its members. The amount of business conducted by Nidhi Companies is not as big as commercial banks or deposit taking Non-Banking Finance Companies. Nidhi Companies are highly localized and mostly single office institutions. They are also referred to as mutual benefit societies, because they accept deposits and give loans to only their own members; and membership is limited