Therefore, caution should be exercised in establishing the employment relationship, as it is imperative that the conditions set out in the employment relationship, including the mandatory duration of employment and the amount of the penalty, be proportionate to be valid under Indian law. The term „appropriate“ is not defined in the legislation and, therefore, the meaning must be determined on a case-by-case basis based on the related issues and circumstances of the case. In general, the conditions set out in the Treaty should justify the need to safeguard the interests of the employer and to replace the loss in the event of an infringement. In addition, the mandatory penalty or duration of employment set out in the contract should not be exorbitant to be considered valid and appropriate. I had signed a loan at a particular company and entered as an intern, but now I want to leave the company because my father is still tormenting me. The loan I signed states that if I leave the company without serving the 3-year period, I have to pay ₹ 2 lakhs plus the amount spent on my training. Thirteen months have passed, there is no training for me. Please, help me solve this problem. The obligation to work is considered appropriate, as it is necessary to protect the interests of the employer.
However, the restrictions imposed on the worker in the contract should be „appropriate“ and „necessary“ to safeguard the interests of the employer, or the validity of the obligations is reviewed. The worker may not be compelled to work for an employer by imposing the employment relationship. In the event of an infringement on the part of the employee, the only recourse available to the employer is to obtain a reasonable amount of compensation. It is important to note that the government has kept in mind the impressive tone of a staff loan and has given the employee to leave a company, even if he or she has signed a loan that gives a fixed period for work. . . .