Under Indian law, any relationship between the employer and the worker is not valid. Bright! So what is the main purpose of the commitment? From a legal point of view, any relationship signed by an organization with a staff member is null and void, in accordance with the Indian Constitution. A loan was taken out between a student and the State of Mysore, the State of Mysore agreed to pay its training fees in the United States of America. The condition of such a payment was that once he had completed his studies, he would serve the Land Government for a period of at least 5 years. Another clause of the obligation stated that if the student had not obtained employment within six months of returning from the United States, the State of Mysore would have been able to waive the right to use its services. In the event of a breach of the obligation, the student was required to reimburse with interest all expenses incurred by the government. The student completed his studies and graduated in 1950 and remained in the United States with permission from the state to complete his practical training at his own expense. The Supreme Court ruled that the 6-month stay in India upon his return for domestic reasons did not indicate that he was waiting for the state to offer him an appointment. 3. The worker shall exercise the functions and powers conferred on him or her from time to time by the board of directors of the company. In the case said, you have to work with the same company for five months to fulfill the conditions of engagement, and some of the team leaders do not behave properly with you.

The first step that companies take after the breach of the work obligation is to send legal information asking the employee to immediately present himself to the obligation, failing which the dismissal should ask the worker to pay the agreed amount on bail. After the worker has not paid the amount, an appeal is brought before a competent court, depending on the conditions of employment, to recover the amount due. The Tribunal examines the actual costs incurred by the employer, the duration of the worker`s service, the conditions set out in the contract to determine the damage suffered by the employer, in order to obtain a reasonable amount of compensation. In the case of Sicpa India Limited against Shri Manas Pratim Deb, the applicant had incurred a cost of Rs 67,595, while he provided the defendant with training for which a work loan had been issued, for which the defendant had agreed to serve the complainant for a period of three years or to pay Rs 200,000. After two years of activity, the employee left the company. The Tribunal determined a reasonable amount of case 22, 532. The Court of First Instance took into account, when fixing the amount, the total cost borne by the employer and the worker. In the event of a breach of an employment relationship, the employer may be entitled to compensation.

The compensation awarded should be appropriate to compensate for the loss and should not exceed the penalty set out in the contract. . . .