SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 17794

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Vibhu Bakhru, CJ, C.M. Poonacha, J
Employees State Insurance Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Abhishek Choudhari – Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 312 of 2020



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Geetha Devi M.P.
For the Respondents: Akkamahadevi Hiremath, K.S. Harish, N.K. Ramesh, Ratna Shivayogimatt, N. Khetty

Service bonds requiring graduates to serve an educational institution for a fixed period in exchange for subsidised training are valid, enforceable contracts that do not violate constitutional prohibitions against forced labour or statutory restraints of trade, provided the terms are reasonable and serve public interest.

Headnote:(A) Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 19, 56, 59, and 59-B - Constitution of India - Articles 19(1)(g), 19(6), and 23 - Service bonds - Compulsory service - Validity of contract - Statutory bodies are empowered to impose conditions for admission to medical courses, including the requirement to serve in institutional hospitals, as part of a contractual arrangement for subsidised education - Such bonds do not constitute forced labour or unreasonable restraint of trade. (Paras 35-43, 53-54, 60-66)

(B) Contract Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Restraint of trade - A covenant in a service bond requiring a professional to serve an organisation for a fixed term in exchange for professional training or subsidised education does not violate the principle of restraint of trade, as it is a voluntary agreement to protect the employer's interests and ensure return on investment. (Paras 55-57, 65)

Facts of the case:
Students admitted to medical courses under a government quota were required to execute service bonds committing them to serve in affiliated hospitals for a period of five years upon completion of their degree, failing which a specified sum of money was payable. Following the completion of their course, the students challenged the legality of these bonds, contending they constituted bonded labour, violated freedom of profession, and were signed without free consent or prior knowledge.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the execution of a service bond is a voluntary contractual obligation entered into by students in exchange for subsidised medical education. The statutory power to establish medical colleges implies the authority to secure the services of graduates to further the objective of providing medical care. The conditions in the bond are not penal but reflect a fair compensation for the cost of education borne by the institution.

Issues: Whether the prescription of compulsory service for medical students is legally competent, whether such bonds violate the constitutional guarantees against forced labour and the freedom to practice a profession, and whether the bonds constitute an voidable contract in restraint of trade.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that there is no constitutional violation as the students are free to opt out by paying the stipulated liquated damages, which effectively serves as compensation for the educational costs incurred. The contractual service obligation is a standard condition for subsidised professional training and does not fall under the prohibition of forced labour or unlawful restraint of trade.

Result: Appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual background and introduction concerning esic medical service bonds. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
2. review of the lower court's findings quashing the service bonds. (Para 26 , 27)
3. statutory power of esic to mandate service bonds under the esi act. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
4. service bond constitutes a valid, binding contract for educational services. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48)
5. service bonds do not violate article 19(1)(g) or article 23. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66)
6. estoppel prevents students from challenging bond conditions after completion. (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78)
7. court order upholding bond enforceability with current modification. (Para 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83)

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14/02/2020 OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NOS.30406-411/2018 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS.

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

INTRODUCTION

1. This intra-court appeal arises from a common judgment and order dated 14.02.2020 [hereinafter ‘the impugned order’] passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.29365-29368/2018 clubbed with W.P.Nos.29817-29818/2018 & 29820-29822/2018, W.P.Nos.29823-29828/2018, W.P.No.29874/2018 & W.P.Nos.29876-29879/2018, and W.P.Nos.30406-30411/2018 (EDN-RES), whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petitions. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned posting orders. Further, the court restrained the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation [hereinafter ‘ESIC’ or ‘the Corporation’] and its colleges from enforcing the five-year compulsory service bond furnished by the writ petitioners and directed ESIC and its colleges to unconditionally relieve the petitioners from the obligation of compulsory service.

2. The present appeal, W.A.No.312/2020, is preferred by the ESIC and its Medical College & PGIMSR, Rajajinagar, Bangalore [hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘the appellants’] assailing the impugned order insofar as it relates to W.P.Nos.30406-30411/2018. The said petitions were filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 6 herein [hereinafter ‘the respondents’ or ‘the petitioners’].

3. The petitioners are students who were admitted to the MBBS course at the ESIC Medical College & PGIMSR, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru [hereinafter ‘the College’] for the academic year 2012-13, in the Government quota seats allotted by the Karnataka Examinations Authority [hereinafter ‘KEA’]. They had furnished service bonds undertaking to serve at the Hospitals of ESIC for a period of five years after completion of their course. The dispute essentially concerns the legality and enforceability of the service bond [hereinafter, the service bond or bonds] furnished by the petitioners. In terms of the bonds furnished by the petitioners, they are required to serve five years at any of the ESIC hospitals across the country and on failure to do so, are liable to pay an amount ₹7,50,000/-.

4. It is important to note that the terms of the service bond were subsequently relaxed under the Memorandum dated 28.07.2020 issued by ESIC; the duration of the compulsory service was reduced to one year, and the amount payable on avoiding the bond was reduced to ₹5,00,000/-. The said terms were applicable prospectively, that is, with effect from 28.07.2020. But the benefit was also available to students already serving at the ESIC Hospitals under the bonds furnished by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top