Validity of Lock-In Periods in Indian Employment Contracts Upheld  

Background

The case involved an Indian company, Lily Packers Private Limited, which sued its former employees, Vaishnavi Umak, Meetkumar Patel and Rahul Sharma, for resigning before completing their three (3) year lock-in periods under their respective employment contracts.  The company was engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of corrugated packaging, and the employees were engaged in the capacity of a fashion designer, an autocad design engineer and a general supply chain manager, respectively.  

The employment contracts provided for arbitration as the dispute resolution mechanism, and accordingly, the Petitioner company issued notices on the employees invoking arbitration under the Arbitration Act.  However, the employees did not submit to arbitration contesting that the lock-in period provisions were violative of their fundamental rights under the Constitution of India and, therefore, not arbitrable.  As a result, the Petitioner company filed petitions before the DHC seeking the appointment of an arbitrator.

Ruling of the Delhi High Court

The DHC upheld the validity of the lock-in period in the employment agreements. 

The DHC examined the well-established principles on validity of restrictive covenants in employment contracts.  It relied on Supreme Court rulings that have consistently held that reasonable negative covenants operating during the term of the employment contract are not considered a restraint of trade and are, therefore, valid and enforceable.  The DHC emphasized that the terms of an employment contract such as the lock-in period, salary, benefits, etc., are a subject matter of negotiation and are agreed by parties on their own volition.  The DHC further observed that, generally, disputes arising from employment contracts are contractual in nature and cannot be regarded as violative of fundamental rights.  The DHC also noted that such clauses in employment contracts are, in fact, necessary for the health of the employer institution as it provides the required stability and strength to the employer institution and its framework.  

As the issues in dispute in the instant case were within the four-corners of the employment contracts entered into between the company and the employees, the DHC held that the disputes were clearly arbitrable under the Arbitration Act and, thus, appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes.  In this regard, the DHC clarified that the observations made in the DHC’s order would not be binding on the arbitrator, and the arbitrator should take an independent view on all the issues without being influenced by such observations.

Our comments

The DHC’s ruling strengthens the case for employers and safeguards them against the high cost of employee turnover, especially when an employer invests heavily in training new recruits.  By incorporating a clearly defined lock-in period in employment contracts, employers can secure a level of commitment from new employees.  Nonetheless, it is crucial for employers to ensure that these clauses are reasonable in length and clearly communicated at the time of recruitment. Further, the employer should also ensure that the concerned employee is a beneficiary of a special concession or specialised training and prove that the company will incur a quantifiable loss in case the employee leaves the company during the lock-in period.   

Lastly, the judgement confirms that disputes over lock-in clauses are arbitrable under the Arbitration Act.  This allows for resolving disagreements over these clauses through a private arbitration process, which is quicker and more cost-effective as compared to filing a case in an Indian court.

By Ravi S. Raghavan, Majmudar & Partners, India, a Transatlantic Law International Affiliated Firm.

For further information or for any assistance please contact india@transatlanticlaw.com

Disclaimer: Transatlantic Law International Limited is a UK registered limited liability company providing international business and legal solutions through its own resources and the expertise of over 105 affiliated independent law firms in over 95 countries worldwide. This article is for background information only and provided in the context of the applicable law when published and does not constitute legal advice and cannot be relied on as such for any matter. Legal advice may be provided subject to the retention of Transatlantic Law International Limited’s services and its governing terms and conditions of service. Transatlantic Law International Limited, based at 84 Brook Street, London W1K 5EH, United Kingdom, is registered with Companies House, Reg Nr. 361484, with its registered address at 83 Cambridge Street, London SW1V 4PS, United Kingdom.