Important decision of Delhi High Court, it is right to change jobs, not compulsion, the contract was told to stop the zero

The decision came on a dispute between a software engineer Varun Tyagi and his former company Deffodil Software Private Limited. Tyagi resigned from the company and accepted a job in Digital India Corporation (DIC). On this, the company claimed that the contract with him contains non-competed segment, according to which Tyagi cannot work in DIC as he is familiar with the company’s internal information.

Clear message of High Court: No one can be forced to be unemployed

On June 25, the single bench of Justice Tejas Karia gave the verdict that no employee should be in a situation where he has to work for the old employer or remain unemployed. The court said that there is an uneven power balance between the employer and the employee, and for this reason such contracts should be strictly viewed.

Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act says that an agreement to stop any person from doing legitimate trade, profession or business will be considered zero. This means that any clause that stops a person from entering a job or profession is legally invalid.

Former company logic and court response

Defodil software said that he had prohibited working with DIC only for three years, and Tyagi was allowed to work elsewhere. But the court dismissed this argument and said that this is also a type of restrictive condition, which is against the Contract Act.

The court made it clear that employers cannot forcibly maintain any employee in the name of confidential information or data protection. The court also said that no freedom can be banned under the guise of secrecy.

Earlier decision was also cited

In this judgment, the court reiterated the 2006 American Express vs. Priya Malik case, reiterating that changing jobs for better service conditions is the fundamental right of an employee, and cannot be suppressed by any condition of contract.

This decision is relieved for all the employees who are implicated in legal complications even after leaving the job. The court made it clear that freedom of employment is a fundamental right, and it cannot be suppressed by the terms of contracts.