In the current business environment, where talent mobility has become the hallmark of modern employment relationships, a question that often arises is how courts should strike a balance between the legitimate interests of employers in retaining skilled personnel on one hand, and employees’ fundamental rights to pursue their chosen trade, business or profession on the other. In Vijaya Bank v Prashant B Narnaware (2025), the Supreme Court of India was most recently faced with this question.
The employee, Prashant B Narnaware, joined Vijaya Bank in 1999 and applied for a new senior position within the same organisation in 2006. The advertisement for this new position had an explicit condition that selected candidates would execute an indemnity bond of INR200,000 (USD2,268), payable if they left the employment of the bank before completing three years.
Cognisant of this condition, the employee applied for and secured the said senior position, and accepted an appointment letter containing a clause that mandated such minimum service tenure of three years and execution of an indemnity bond for the aforesaid sum.
He joined the position in September 2007, and executed the required bond pursuant to the employment bond clause. However, he resigned in July 2009 – before completing the stipulated minimum service tenure of three years – to join another bank, and paid the bank INR200,000 as per the employment bond clause, albeit under protest.
The employee subsequently...
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen got sued by an MEP. EPA/OLIVIER HOSLET 17 September 2025 Romanian MEP Gheorghe Piperea filed an action against European Commission President Urs...