You have posted that employee has tendered notice of resignation and served notice period, worked to the satisfaction of the company, submitted company property and he has the acknowledgment from an employee of the company.
And that contention of the company that he has not submitted company property/assets is false. The employee has the evidence.
Employee may build further written record that he was forced and coerced to sign a bond on last day in office with arbitrary conditions and without allowing him to go thru the bond and seek consultation on the bond, and the police complaint is counterblast, and criminal intimidation.
Let your matter betaken up by a lawyer and let your lawyer explain by a legal notice to the company.
You may succeed to prove that the employer and individuals in the company have filed a false complaint as courts in India from High courts to Supreme Court have delivered judgments time and again to decline to impose such unreasonable restraint as written by employers in agreements this employer of wicked mindset has conceived to implicate the hapless employee in false criminal complaint and finish him and his employability. Thus you can catch them by their nose and plead to the court to award exemplary punishment.
The employer can claim exclusive rights on time of employee during the course of employment, but in your case it is after separation. It is felt that although courts have delivered judgments that such an imposition shall be void still employers and advisors formulate and impose such agreements and impose on hapless employee.
In your case the zealous and vindictive employer has crossed all limits and has proceeded to file criminal charges and get the employee arrested, and separate him from next employer and block the source of livelihood. This employer can scoop down to such low levels. It is felt that such employer {individuals} are not fit to be left to loose around in a civilized society.
Company is aware that its contentions may not stand the test of law hence it has lodged false complaint as a counterblast.
Employee may submit PF withdrawal forms and FormI for gratuity to o/o Appointing Authority, MD {by name} under proper acknowledgment and if company declines to accept it employee may send the Forms by registered post and scanned copies by email as well. Employee may obtain POD from PO {internet generated without any fee and certified copy of run sheet of post man by paying a fee of Rs.10/}.
Employee may ask the company { Appointing Authority, MD by name } to acknowledge receipt in writing and supply copy of acknowledgment issued by o/o APFC/RPFC and by Controlling Authority of Gratuity by registered post and should mention that postage prepaid { as purchased from PO} self addressed envelopes are enclosed for sending redg. post by the company. Company should submit forms to o/o APFC/RPFC within 5 days and supply acknowledgment of forms issued by PF office to employee.
Company should pay gratuity in a month’s time.
For correct FNF statement, payment of FNF dues { by bank DD only}, form 16, PF number, PF account slips of all the 7 years, acceptance of resignation, work experience/service certificate, relieving letter, etc …you may request Appointing Authority, MD by name and demand these to be supplied to you at once by redg. post only.
In a given situation employee can invoke the provisions of Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, ID Act, SE Act, Payment of Wages Act…..etc as per explanation of employee under these enactments or approach a civil court. If your establishment is covered under SE Act you may access it on labor website of your state.
You are in which state?
If emails are not fetching you any relief you may approach either the authorities under various enactments on your own or thru your lawyer. Your lawyer may confirm that you fall within the category of a workman.
Company may relent upon legal notice of your lawyer or you may have to agitate.
Majority of the employer feel that employee shall give up after sending a few emails.
Employers do relent in case of firm and properly informed employees.
In a given situation employee can invoke the provisions of Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, ID Act, Se Act, Factory Act, Payment of Wages Act….. as per explanation of employee under these enactments or approach a civil court.
You may check and confirm whether company has its certified standing orders and extended these to your designation/position? Company should display its standing orders on notice board and supply to employee at nominal charges say Rs.10/..
If certified standing orders are not framed, model standing orders shall apply. The bond may be in violation of standing orders of the company.
You may go thru the attachments:
----Polaris Software Lab. Limited ... vs Suren Khiwadkar on 8 September, 2003
3. In all these applications, we are concerned with the common points:
Is the covenant embodied in the Appointment and Undertaking can be enforced during the post service period and after the termination of services of the defendants:
19. The Agreement of Undertaking and the confidential Agreement, Non-disclosure Agreement is valid and could survive only during the subsistence of the contract and course of employment; The distinction between the restraints imposed by a contract operative during the subsistence of the contract of employment and those operative after the termination of service is of fundamental character. The purpose, incidents and consequences of the two types of restraints need to be borne in mind before proceeding to consider the submissions made by the counsel for the plaintiff who seeks for a restraint as claimed in the applications.
Thus the judgment of the Supreme Court is emphatic in its conclusion, that in India, the restraints are operative only during the subsistence of the contract and the restraints could be valid only during the period of contract
----Bombay High Court
Vfs Global Services Private ... vs Mr. Suprit Roy on 10 December, 2007
The legal position was summarised as follows:
The legal position with regard to post-contractual covenants or restrictions has been consistent, unchanging and completely settled in our country. The legal position clearly crystallised in our country is that while construing the provisions of Section 27 of the Contract Act, neither the test of reasonableness nor the principle of restrain being partial is applicable, unless it falls within express exception engrafted in Section 27.
