Employment bonds are enforceable if they reflect reasonable conditions and training investments, but enhancements made retrospectively without consent are not legally sustainable.

JUDGMENT :

V. Narasingh, J.

1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17.09.2009 vide Annexure-4 directing execution of second bond for Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousands) and the agreement vide Annexure-5.

2. Batch of Writ Petitions were filed by the different Petitioners assailing the decision of Odisha Hydro Power Corporation Limited (herein after referred to as “OHPC”) whereby the Petitioners were compelled to deposit an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousands) each towards Bond amount in terms of the Bond they executed at the time of their engagement in Corporation, as they have got better service opportunity in other places to work and wanted to resign from OHPC before the completion of agreed bond period of three years, in the face of earlier agreement at Annexure-3 stipulating that the Petitioners are liable to pay amount of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.30,000/-, if they leave the service of the Corporation in 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd years of service respectively.

3. Since the principal issue to be decided in all the cases is common i.e. whether a Bond with stipulation to pay certain amount in case of resigning the service before completing the agreed tenure of service is justified and if so whether the amount quantified therein is reasonable in terms of not only the conditions laid down in the bond but also in the light of the principle decided inter alia by the Apex Court, all the matters were heard together and disposed of by this common order on the consent of the Parties.

3.A. The Writ Petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 576 of 2012 has been treated as the lead case, to answer the aforesaid issue, as agreed upon by the Parties during the course of hearing.

4. Heard Mr. K. Pattanayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Rout, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties-OHPC.

5. The Petitioner applied for the post of Management Trainee (HRD) in terms of an advertisement issued by OHPC dated 9^th February 2009. Offer of appointment was issued on 12^th June 2009 advising him to join on 13.07.2009 by furnishing report to the Deputy General Manager (HRD) at OHPC Training Centre, Bhubaneswar. In the said appointment letter, it was also indicated that the Petitioner has to submit a service bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands) only for 3 years on a stamp paper as per the draft made by the OHPC Ltd. on 02.07.2009. The Petitioner accordingly furnished bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands) in favour of the OHPC on 02.07.2009. It was further stipulated in the said bond that an employee has to work for a minimum period of 3 years and in case he leaves within one year then he has to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands) and if he leaves during second and 3^rd year of his service then he has to pay Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousands) and Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousands) respectively.

6. It is contended by the Petitioner that after letter of appointment was issued and the Petitioner joined and executed the service bond on 2^nd July 2009, a subsequent decision by OHPC. was communicated vide letter dated 17^th September 2009 (Annexure-4) directing to execute a bond for Rs.1,50,000/- which is not sustainable and such bond executed by the Petitioner was not willful rather it was under compelling circumstances and he was forced to sign such a bond even though he had already executed a bond since 2^nd July 2009 (Annexure-3). The Petitioner admits that he executed a bond of Rs.1,50,000/- on 05.10.2009 but under duress as he has no alternative.

7. Relevant extract of Annexure-2 (order of selection) and Annexure-3 (Agreement) is culled out hereunder