Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The averments in the temporary injunction application vis--vis plaint in a nut shell are that the plaintiff a registered company, the deponent of which is its director, vide authorization of board resolution, dated 26.06.2017, engaged in the business of providing wide range of Information Technology Solutions, support of services in different fields since 2004 to more than 100 companies across the world, having its registered office at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, that the defendant was an employee of the plaintiff company from 17.04.2015 to 12.05.2017 with employment I.D.No.912, that at the time of taking up the employment the defendant agreed to the terms of employment and duly signed vide employment agreement, dated 17.04.2015 and that the employment agreement contains clauses relating to place of work, notice period, duties, hours of work, non-solicitation, non- compete and survival. It is further averred that in order to adequately protect the interest of the plaintiff company from divulging such confidential information, the defendant agreed by non-solicitation clause 7 and non-compete clause 10 of the agreement, which reads thus:

7. Non-Solicitation & Non Compete Subsequent to your separation from the Company, for a period of twelve months you will not take up any job or assignment, either full time or otherwise, either directly or indirectly for/on behalf of any other organization working with the client of the Company, whose assignment you have worked on in the twelve months immediately preceding your separation from the Company.

You also hereby further agree that during the term of this agreement and for a period of 12 months immediately following the cessation/termination of your employment with the Company, you shall not directly or indirectly a. Solicit or attempt to solicit any of the Companys Employees to work for you or any other person, firm, company, partnership or corporation competitive with the Company;

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the defendant before the lower Court, admitted about he was the ex employee of the plaintiff company and joined in that company on 16.04.2015 and provided his services till 12.05.2017 and as per the contractual agreement, the term prescribed under a contractual period is one year, however subject to the satisfaction of the plaintiff company, his services were extended for two consecutive years. The defendant specifically denied that he signed the employment agreement neither 16.04.2015 nor 17.04.2015, whereby after receiving the summons and the copy of enclosures along with the plaint and the petition, he found that the employment agreement was re-modified and the date is re-corrected as 17th April instead of 16th April and it is pertinent to mention that the copy of the employment agreement was never given to him in spite of being made requests to provide the document while he was employment. The defendant though not denied as to the execution of employment agreement on 16th April, 2015, but the contents therein are subsequently incorporated after he signed in the employment agreement, particularly page No.4 not possessed his signature and clause 7 (Non-Solicitation) and clause 10 (non-compete) of the agreement are ultra virus to the employment agreement as even after relieving from the office of the employee, restraining the ex-employee from joining the company other than the plaintiff company is arbitrary, unjust and against the principle of natural law. The defendant further stated in the counter affidavit that he is a software employee and his work is related to the subject matter which is one and the common in almost most of the companies and once the employee relieves from the services, such employee is free to work with any other company, who appoints him on his caliber and on merits and in the same manner the defendant joined in Eastman Chemicals India Private Limited, Hyderabad, subsequent to the relieving from the plaintiff company on 12.05.2017. The plaintiff company neither provided the employment agreement to him nor the client companies list, the question of knowing about he rendering services to the client of Plaintiff Company, i.e., Eastman Chemicals India Private Limited, Hyderabad, does not arise. As per Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void. It is further averred in the counter that the plaintiff has to establish that the plaintiff company is having any professional business with Eastman Chemicals India Private Limited and the Eastman Chemicals India Private Limited is controlling and affiliated entities including ECC as it is displayed all its worldwide locations including Hyderabad office i.e., Eastman Chemicals India Private Limited and USA office location i.e., ECC. Unless the plaintiff company is taken permission from the ECC, it cannot be said that Eastman Chemicals India Private Limited is affiliated company. It is averred that during course of employment the defendant had entrusted with several projects and completed the work as per the schedule and his services provided only to plaintiff company, but not for plaintiff clients organization and as the invoice raised by the plaintiff, he has to answer about the defendant worked with the project of plaintiffs client company. More over, the plaintiff company is very well aware as to the defendant leaving the company and joining in other software company, the plaintiff with an ill intention, forced to make him to settle their scores, filed the false claim. Once the defendant relieved from the plaintiff company, he is free to join any company and the plaintiff cannot curtail or restrain him from doing so and restraining him from its lawful employment with other company is void. The defendant made signatures on 16.04.2015, but the employment agreement annexed to the plaint shows on 17.04.2015, which shows the plaintiff company incorporated clauses 7, 10 and other clauses as per their whims and fancies only to harass him and the clause 7 of employment agreement is void ab initio, which is made for the selfish purpose of plaintiff company to gain monitory benefit and to make loss to the defendant and if a agreement executed between the parties, it shall be for the benefit of both parties to the agreement. But, here the plaintiff company compelled the defendant to sign on the agreement for its selfish motto to safeguard the personal and professional interest. It is further averred in the counter that unless and until the plaintiff company establishes that due to joining of defendant to the Eastman Chemicals India Private Limited, the plaintiff company is suffering financial, reputation and intellectual property loss, business loss and manpower loss and the plaintiff company has no cause of action to approach this court with a relief of restraining him from working with the plaintiffs client company.

19. Coming to another Single Judge Bench expression of the Delhi High Court in Wipro Limited v. Beckman Coulter International S A with reference to Section 27 of the Contract Act, 42 of Specific Relief Act and Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, where Niranjan Shankar Golikari supra and Gujarat Bottling Co.Ltd. supra, also referred and discussed besides Halsburys Laws of England (3rd edition) Volume 38, at page 15, what constitutes restraint of trade and also referring to Krishna Murgai, the statutory provision of Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act alone has to be examined anything as if a covenant falls within the scope of that Section as amounting to a restraint of trade, business or profession, then whether it is partial or general or whether it is reasonable or unreasonable would not be a material question. Ultimately at para 47 of the judgment, it is observed that negative covenants between employer and employee contracts pertaining to the period post termination and restricting an employee's right to seek employment and or to do business in the same field as the employer would be in restraint of trade and, therefore, a stipulation to this effect in the contract would be void and no employee can be confronted with the situation where he has to either work for the present employer or be forced to idleness. The Courts shall take a stricter view in employer-employee contracts than in other contracts. The reason being that in the latter kind of contracts, the parties are expected to have dealt with each other on more or less an equal footing, whereas in employer-employee contracts, the norm is that the employer has an advantage over the employee and it is quite often the case that employees have to sign standard form contracts or not be employed at all. The question of reasonableness as also the question of whether the restraint is partial or complete is not required to be considered at all whenever an issue arises as to whether a particular term of a contract is or is not in restraint of trade, business or profession. It is also discussed as to whether non-solicitation clause in question amounts to a restraint of trade, business or profession and observed that the clause itself does not put any restriction on the employees, the restriction is put on the petitioner and the respondent has to be viewed more liberally than a restriction in an employer-employee contract. However, the question that arises is what happens when the respondent has solicited or induced or encouraged employees of the petitioner to leave or resign from such employment and join the respondent. If an injunction is granted, it would imply that the respondent cannot employ such employees who have responded to the advertisement, but it would also mean that employees who did not have any such restrictive covenant in their employment contracts, would be barred from taking up employment with the respondent. Therefore, an injunction cannot be granted restraining the respondent from employing even those employees of the petitioner company who were allured by the solicitation held out by the respondent in the said advertisement.