For any organisation, hiring is a major investment. Employers pour significant time and resources into finding the right person—conducting interviews, sharing confidential data, and even customising contracts. When a candidate accepts and signs an offer, the company stops its search, often planning critical projects around the new hire's start date.

But what happens when the candidate backs out at the last minute?

While it’s easy to sympathise with someone having second thoughts, the consequences for the employer can be severe. A client project with a hard deadline may be jeopardised. The company faces not only financial loss from the wasted recruitment effort but also potential reputational damage. This problem is especially acute for white-collar knowledge workers, whose specialized roles are much harder to fill on short notice.

This isn't just an inconvenience; it's a breach of a legally binding agreement.

The legal framework

In India, an employment contract is legally enforceable, creating binding obligations for both parties. The employee is obligated to join on the agreed date, and the employer is obligated to provide employment.

To manage risk, contracts typically include a notice period, which allows either party to terminate the agreement by providing advance notice or paying a corresponding salary instead of that notice. However, the enforceability of this clause hinges on a key distinction in Indian labour law, primarily under state-specific Shops and Commercial Establishment Acts.

These laws differentiate between two categories of employees:

Non-exempt employees: Staff who do not hold managerial or supervisory roles and are typically protected by statutory rules regarding work hours, overtime, and termination notice.
Exempt employees: Managerial, supervisory, or confidential staff who are "exempt" from many of these statutory provisions. Their relationship with the employer is governed more directly by the terms of their contract.

This distinction is critical. An employer's ability to legally recover salary for an unserved notice period is strongest with exempt employees, provided the contract meets three conditions:

Reciprocity: The notice period must apply equally to both the employer and the employee.
Reasonableness: The length of the notice period must be fair and not excessive.
Direct equivalence: The amount recovered cannot be a "penalty"; it must be equivalent to the salary for the unserved notice period.

Crucially, any contract clause that tries to waive an employee's fundamental statutory rights will be considered void and unenforceable.

Professional integrity is a two-way street

Beyond the legal technicalities lies a fundamental principle of professional integrity. Employees rightfully expect their commitment to be taken seriously by employers, and this requires them to act with the same level of responsibility.

This isn't a theoretical argument. I have personally seen an employer honour its side of the bargain by paying full notice pay to candidates it hired but could not onboard because a project was cancelled. In doing so, they demonstrated a fair employment practice that courts would almost certainly uphold if challenged.

It is only fair that employees extend the same professional courtesy. An employment contract is not a casual document to be disregarded at will.

A healthy professional ecosystem is built on mutual accountability. Holding someone to a fair contractual term is not a punishment; it's an enforcement of the very agreement the relationship is built on.

(The author is Partner, JSA Advocates and Solicitors. Views are personal.)

Employment Contract

More than paper: The real costs of breaking an employment contract