Introduction
In a landmark ruling dated 14 May 2025, the Supreme Court of India in Vijaya Bank & Anr. v. Prashant B. Narnaware examined the enforceability of a minimum service clause and corresponding liquidated damages in a public sector employment contract. This judgment addresses critical constitutional and contractual issues, particularly the applicability of Section 27 (restraint of trade) and Section 23 (public policy) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The decision provides authoritative guidance on the legitimacy of standard-form employment contracts and the scope of judicial scrutiny over employment restrictions.
1. Factual Background and Procedural History
The respondent, Prashant B. Narnaware, joined Vijaya Bank in 1999 and rose through the ranks. In 2006, the bank issued a recruitment notification for various officer positions, mandating the execution of an indemnity bond of ₹2 lakhs for candidates resigning before completing three years of service. The respondent applied for and was appointed to the post of Senior Manager, executing an indemnity bond in accordance with Clause 11(k) of his appointment letter.
Before completing the stipulated three years, the respondent resigned in 2009 to join another bank. He paid the ₹2 lakh under protest and subsequently filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the indemnity clause on the grounds of unconstitutionality and illegality under the Indian Contract Act. The High Court quashed the clause and ordered the refund of the amount. Vijaya Bank appealed to the Supreme Court.
2. Identification of Legal Issues
The Supreme Court considered two pivotal legal questions:
(i) Whether Clause 11(k) constitutes a restraint of trade under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
(ii) Whether the clause is opposed to public policy and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, thereby offending Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.
3. Arguments of the Parties
Appellants (Vijaya Bank):
- Asserted that Clause 11(k) was a reasonable restriction requiring employees to either serve a minimum of three years or pay liquidated damages.
- Argued that the clause operated during the term of employment and therefore did not fall foul of Section 27.
- Defended the ₹2 lakh amount as compensation for recruitment and training costs, asserting it was not excessive or unconscionable.
- Relied on Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. and Superintendence Co. v. Krishan Murgai to support the validity of restrictive covenants during employment.
Respondent (Employee):
- Contended that the clause was part of a standard-form contract and executed under compulsion, violating fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).
- Argued that the clause imposed an unreasonable financial burden, leading to unjust enrichment.
- Relied on Central Inland Water Transport Corp. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly to argue that unfair standard contracts should be invalidated on public policy grounds.
4. Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
Restraint of Trade – Section 27
The Court reaffirmed the principle laid down in Golikari that restrictive covenants applicable during the subsistence of employment are not hit by Section 27 unless they are excessively harsh or unreasonable. Clause 11(k) did not prohibit the respondent from taking future employment but merely sought a financial deterrent for premature resignation, which did not amount to restraint of trade.
Public Policy – Section 23
Citing Brojo Nath Ganguly, the Court acknowledged that standard-form employment contracts raise concerns of unequal bargaining power. However, it emphasized that not all such contracts are void. The test of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality must be contextually applied.
In this case, the Court noted:
- The clause did not bar future employment.
- The employee voluntarily accepted the terms and tendered resignation while paying the agreed sum.
- The amount of ₹2 lakhs was reasonable given the bank’s recruitment costs and operational needs.
Broader Doctrinal and Policy Considerations
- The Court noted evolving notions of public policy and stressed the need to reconcile employee rights with legitimate institutional interests, particularly in a liberalized, competitive economic environment.
- The liquidated damages clause was justified to maintain operational efficiency and reduce attrition in a public sector bank operating under constitutional and statutory constraints on recruitment.
Distinction from BEML Case
The High Court had relied on K.Y. Venkatesh Kumar v. BEML Ltd., where a broader restriction also limited future employability. The Supreme Court distinguished that case, observing that the BEML clause was more restrictive and lacked substantiation regarding institutional hardship. Judgments, it held, must be applied with regard to the factual matrix.
5. Final Conclusion and Holding
The Supreme Court held that Clause 11(k) did not:
- Constitute restraint of trade under Section 27,
- Violate public policy under Section 23,
- Offend Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the High Court’s judgment quashing the clause was set aside. The decision reaffirms the enforceability of minimum service bonds with reasonable liquidated damages in employment contracts, particularly in the public sector.
FAQs:
1. Can an employer require a minimum service period through a bond?
Yes, employers may legally require employees to serve for a minimum period through a bond, especially where training or recruitment involves significant investment, provided the clause is reasonable.
2. Is a clause imposing financial penalty for early resignation valid?
Yes, as long as the penalty reflects a pre-estimate of loss and is not unconscionable or arbitrary, such clauses are enforceable under contract law.
3. Does a standard employment contract amount to coercion?
Not necessarily. While courts scrutinize standard contracts for fairness, their execution is not deemed coercive unless the terms are unreasonable and exploitative.
4. When does a contract clause become contrary to public policy?
A contract clause violates public policy if it is unfair, unconscionable, or injurious to public interest. Courts assess this based on societal norms, constitutional values, and evolving economic contexts.
5. What is the difference between restriction during and after employment?
Restrictions during employment are generally valid (e.g., exclusivity clauses), while post-employment restrictions are viewed more strictly and may be void if they unreasonably limit future livelihood options.
Stay informed with insights that matter. Follow us for more updates on key legal developments.
Disclaimer
The content provided here is for general information only; it does not constitute legal advice. Reading them does not create a lawyer-client relationship, and Mahendra Bhavsar & Co. disclaims all liability for actions taken or omitted based on this content. Always obtain advice from qualified counsel for your specific circumstances. © Mahendra Bhavsar & Co.