ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. The short question for consideration is whether “minimum service bond” signed in an employer & employee relationship is valid as per the mandate of the Constitution of India or not. 2. In the present writ petition, petitioner challenges the inaction of Respondent No. 1 - Commissioner of Labour, Telangana through Respondent No. 3 – Joint Commissioner of Labour, RR District against Respondent No. 4 - Algonox i.e. petitioner’s employer, who had made him sign an "employment bond" and extorted Rs.5,90,000/- (Rupees five lakh ninety thousand) from petitioner, by not relieving him from the job unless he makes such payment and citing the "Bond" which they made him sign under duress (i.e. issuing the bond one month after employment and "in total issuing employment bonds three times to the petitioner) and harassing and causing immense mental trauma and financial distress to petitioner. 3. Petitioner states that he had joined Respondent No. 4 as an intern during June to August 2019 and was issued a full time employment offer in September, 2019 through offer letter dated 01.09.2019 and joined the employment under Employee ID: 1182, on 01.09.2019. Petitioner was made to sign employment bond viz."Surety agreement" for minimum duration of employment by Respondent No. 4 as follows: i. 1st Bond, October 2019, for 24 months ii. 2 nd Bond, June 2021, for 12 months iii. 3 rd Bond, April 2022, for 26 months According to petitioner, 2019 and 2021 surety bond copies were not given to him. 3.1. Petitioner states that making an employee sign an ‘Employment Bond’ after one month of employment, is clearly abuse of their dominance position, under which getting a signature from the employee, who is in a weaker position is easy, thus violating the principle of ‘Free Consent’ under Section 16 (undue influence) and 14 (Free Consent) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (1872 Act) as such, the contract being one- sided, the said "Employment Bonds" are void in nature. Further, petitioner states that, every time he wanted to resign from the services due to the hostile work culture, illegal labour policies, abusive work allocation (i.e. making him to work for 12-15 hours a day); petitioner cited the ‘Bond and asked to stay and then later hiked salary nominally. Yet, under some or the other pretext, petitioner was asked not to resign. Yet, under some or the other pretext, petitioner was asked not to resign. Being vexed with the bonded labour culture, petitioner had finally decided to resign and submitted his resignation on 11.08.2023 via e mail to Respondent No. 4, who, in turn, refused via e mail on 12.08.2023 to accept his resignation and cited that to break the "Employment Bond" (the 30% bond), petitioner has to pay a total of Rs.5.9 lacs INR to them, and only then, they will accept his resignation. 3.2. Petitioner further states that after receiving refusal to accept his resignation from respondent No. 4, he filed a representation with Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on 10.10.2023, after which a joint meeting was called vide notice dated 17.10.2023, (meeting dated 20.10.2023) to solve the issue amicably. Yet, while the discussions were in progress, the employer was adamant on NOT accepting his resignation and threatened petitioner that he would face dire consequences if he does not pay Rs.5.9 lacs INR for bond breakage and that he would lose employment opportunities if court proceedings are initiated needlessly and they would ensure that they would prolong the matter as much as possible to cause maximum harm to petitioner. It is further stated, petitioner was not given salary for August, September and October, 2023 and till 08.11.2023, respondent No. 4 withheld his salary for three months in lieu of Employment Bond payment and asked him to pay the remaining with 18% GST. Additionally, leave encashment was also withheld and the same was also outlined in the legal notice issued to Respondent No. 4. Under the threat of losing employment opportunities, petitioner was helpless but to pay an additional amount of Rs.1,34,853 (Rupees one lakh thirty four thousand eight hundred and fifty three) on 21.11.2023, to make up for the total Rs.5.9 lacs INR, so that petitioner could exit the company and start his new employment. Respondent No. 4 also made him sign a self- declaration on 21.11.2023 i.e. after making payment of Rs.5.9 lac INR in total, stating that petitioner would not take any legal action against them post-relieving from the job. This practice alone shows the malice on their part, as to how they expect the employees to relinquish their right to legal remedy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and also against Section 28 of 1872 Act Bonded or Forced Labour. 3.3. This practice alone shows the malice on their part, as to how they expect the employees to relinquish their right to legal remedy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and also against Section 28 of 1872 Act Bonded or Forced Labour. 3.3. According to petitioner, the Constitution of India, Article 23 (1) prohibits any form of forced labour and Article 23 (2) recognizes imposition of compulsory services only in "Public services", as such, employment bonds" that Respondent No. 4 is indulging in, stands contrary to the Constitution of India and thus void. Further, the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 also prohibits any kind of bonded labour system, even in the case of workman, as carried a maximum of three years imprisonment under Section 16 for employers who make the employees sign any contract under Section 5 of the 1976 Act. Also, all such contracts/agreements under Section 5 are void. Section 2 (g) (v) (1) and (explanation paragraph) of 1976 Act, states as follows; (g) "bonded labour system" means the system of forced, or partly forced, labour under which a debtor enters, or has, or is presumed to have, entered, into an agreement with the creditor to the effect that,? (1) render, by himself or through any member of his family; or any person dependent on him, labour or service to the creditor, or for the benefit of the creditor, for a specified period or for an . unspecified period, either without wages or for nominal wages, or Explanation. —For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any system of forced, or partly forced labour under which any workman being contract labour as defined in clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 2 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (37 of 1970), or an inter-State migrant workman as defined in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 (30 of 1979), is required to render labour or service in circumstances of the nature mentioned in sub-clause (1) of this clause or is subjected to all or any of the disabilities referred to in sub-clauses (2) to (4), is "bonded labour system" within the meaning of this clause;] 5. Agreement, custom, etc., to be void. Agreement, custom, etc., to be void. — On the commencement of this Act, any custom or tradition or any contract, agreement or other instrument (whether entered into or executed before or after the commencement of this Act), by virtue of which any person, or any member of the family or dependant of such person, is required to do any work or render any service as a bonded labourer, shall be void and inoperative 3.4. Petitioner further states that as per Section 47 (2) of Telangana State Shops & Establishments Act, 1988 (1988 Act), an employee may voluntarily resign from employment by giving notice of at least 15 days. Yet, Respondent No. 4 has 90 days' notice for voluntary resignation coupled with a "Bonded labour" clause to harass employees and extorting money from the employees who want to resign and move away from such company. This 90 days' notice clause in the offer letter is also against Section 23 (unlawful agreement) of 1872 Act which reads as under: “An employee who has completed the age of sixty years or who is physically or mentally unfit having been so declared by a Registered Medical Practitioner or who wants to retire on medical grounds or to resign his service may give up his employment after giving to his employer notice of at least fifteen days and where no such notice is given, the service compensation payable to him shall be forfeited to he extent of fifteen days in lieu of the notice. 3.5. Section 66 of 1988 Act makes any contract contrary to the provisions of the said Act null and void. Petitioner also states that the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,1946 (Central Legislation) through which Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Central Rules, 1946 were issued, mandates under Schedule 1, Rule 15 as follows: “ Certificate on termination of service.-Every permanent workman shall be entitled to a service certificate at the time of his dismissal, discharge or retirement from service”. 3.6 Petitioner states that legal validity of "Employment Bond" in the private sector of employment has not been decided till date, by any Constitutional Court in India, and only compensatory element has been decided under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. 3.6 Petitioner states that legal validity of "Employment Bond" in the private sector of employment has not been decided till date, by any Constitutional Court in India, and only compensatory element has been decided under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The offer letter of Respondent No. 4 also does NOT mention basic elements like weekly maximum working hours, Overtime policy, leave policy, paid leave encashment policy, break time policy; which shows the malicious intent and blatant disregard to laws of the land, which the employer is using against petitioner and all such other employees to extort money from them. Further, petitioner requested Respondents 2 or 3 to confirm if "Employment Bonds" are legal in the State or not, so as to conduct these proceedings accordingly in the interest of justice and greater good of the State. The lack of any definite communication or stand in this regard has been affecting millions of Information Technology (IT) sector in Telangana State, which is portrayed as IT HUB in the country and ruining its image through slavery based policies of companies. Petitioner also stated his first representation to Respondents 2 and 3 on 10.10.2023 and the second representation via e mail dated 11.03.2024 through their official e mail address, to follow the mandate of Section 66 of 1988 Act and other such relevant Acts and to help recover the wages of petitioner. He had also stated the legal notice to employer on 11.03.2024. Therefore, petitioner seeks a direction against the violations committed by Respondent No.4 which are totally brushed aside by Respondents 2 and 3 even though were brought to their notice by petitioner, as stated supra. 4. In the counter filed on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3, it is stated, in response to the representation submitted by petitioner, a Joint Meeting was fixed on 26.10.2023 and on subsequent dates. The issue of experience letter, relieving letter, clearance letter, Ceased Salary and issue of relevant pay slips discussed during the course of joint meetings and created awareness and explained the statutory provision of the Act to both the parties and requested the management representative to implement the entitlement of earned leaves under Section 30 of the 1988 Act and settle all the dues as per law and issued experience and relieving certificate as requested by Petitioner at the time of settlement. Subsequently, both the parties did not attend the further meetings before the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Rangareddy Zone, Hyderabad. 4.1. It was further stated, the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Rangareddy Zone, Hyderabad was not notified and appointed as authority to clear and decide claims relating to wages, etcetera of employees in the establishment under Section 50 of the 1988 Act. In fact, Petitioner has to file Application prescribed under law before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Rangareddy who is notified Authority for claims, if any arising out of deduction of wages or delay in Payment of Wages etcetera. Both the Petitioner and Management of Respondent No.4 have not attended joint meetings before the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Rangareddy Zone, Hyderabad. Both the parties settled the issues and arrived at a consensus outside the purview of this office. 4.2. It was also further stated that joint meetings were conducted on the representation submitted to this office, petitioner and management attended on 26.10.2023 and other three meetings and thereafter, both the parties did not appear before this office. As such, the matter was lodged as not pressed. While so, the management submitted status report of full and final settlement on agreement between both the parties. Thereafter, respondent had stopped proceedings of the file as the parties not pressed. After receiving counter affidavit, this office addressed a letter through e mail dated 18.06.2024 and asked the management to submit the status report on this issue. On 19.06.2024, the management submitted the status report and reported that matters were settled bilaterally on different dates between 08.11.2023 and 06.12.2023 5. Respondent No.4 Company filed counter stating that the purported prayer of the Writ itself is deliberately mis- represented as it could be seen from the prayer portion, all the reliefs (which are untenable under law) are sought against Respondent No.4 - which is not a 'STATE' under any parlances, but not against the Official Respondents. According to Respondent No.4, the present petition is a pure civil suit, seeking recovery of money, declaration of invalidity of contract entered by petitioner with Respondent No.4 and to impose punitive damages against them for such alleged violations of the provisions of statutes and Constitution of India, despite the fact that no such proceeding /representation / petition - could be seen pending before official Respondents, seeking such reliefs, even as per the documents filed by Petitioner in this Writ Petition. Hence submitted that the present writ is bundle of untenable civil claims against respondent no.4, mischievously filed in the guise of Writ under Article 226, in sheer abuse of process of law. 5.1. Further, it is stated, petitioner joined Respondent No.4 company as an intern with effect from 19.12.2018 for a period of 90 days initially, but due to his below mediocre capabilities, he could not cope up with the requirements of internship and at his persistent requests, Respondent No.4 extended petitioner's internships further, and he was inducted into regular employment with effect from 01.09.2019 as a Trainee Engineer. Thereafter, petitioner was further imparted advanced training on the emerging and highly sought-after areas of technology (by expending huge amounts, time and energies) and was deployed with reputed entities for delivering services utilizing the knowledge and skills imparted to him, and pertinent to state that petitioner was compensated accordingly, at par with industrial standards, though the required skills, knowledge and experience were imparted to him at the expenses and risk of Respondent No.4. As and when petitioner was trained further on more advanced and latest technologies and skills from time to time, Respondent No.4 used to have detailed deliberations beforehand with him and with such other employees regarding new skills & knowledge to be expanded (at the cost of Respondent No.4), position to be promoted, new responsibilities to be deployed and the tune of compensation to be hiked from employer's end, along with commitment to be sought from the employees in return. As such, everything has been pre-negotiated bilaterally from time to time, mutually agreed afresh, documented and implemented accordingly. In the same manner, respondent herein gave three promotions and four hikes with an astonishing hike of 450% within a Short span of three years nine months of employment, believing petitioner's representations about commitment on minimum tenure of service, and accordingly trained him with latest skills and knowledge in emerging technologies from time to time, expending huge amounts and risking the reputation, future and revenues of Respondent No.4 company. 5.2. Further, it was stated that the agreement for minimum period of service was devised to prevent this sort of attritions and such key roles are offered only to those employees voluntarily concede to commit such minimum period of service. Such voluntarily conceding employees are profoundly compensated with a leap in their salaries, which are mutually- agreed after due deliberations. 5.2. Further, it was stated that the agreement for minimum period of service was devised to prevent this sort of attritions and such key roles are offered only to those employees voluntarily concede to commit such minimum period of service. Such voluntarily conceding employees are profoundly compensated with a leap in their salaries, which are mutually- agreed after due deliberations. After arriving at such consensus, the conceded minimum period of commitment gets documented with such a mutually-agreed amount of settlement in case of breach of commitment, which is intended to be a deterrent for attrition in the middle of ongoing key projects with clients, only thereafter, the negotiated hike and promotion would be formally communicated (usually with retrospective effect) and such promoted employee would be imparted with high value and highly sought after training on happening technologies and related service deliveries, expending huge amounts of money, time and energy, risking the future of the Company and all its employees on the credulity of such key role employees. The same process was followed for Petitioner as well as detailed supra. The transparent negotiation culture prevailing in the Company of Respondent No.4 is evident from the entire set of communications and documents including further hike given to petitioner to Rs.8,00,000/- instead of Rs.7,50,000/- as was initially communicated on 14.06.2021. Petitioner was given lead role and responsibilities as he committed for 26 months and he was offered the unique opportunity and training to enhance his skills, grow and excel in his career, apart from very decent hike in his salary. Petitioner maliciously took the senior role to learn and got exponential hike by deceitfully committing to work for 26 months. Respondent No.4 herein involved him in international projects of very reputed customers, in very important roles, knowing that Respondent No.4 cannot pull him out in the middle of the project, at the time of yearly appraisals, Petitioner unreasonably demanded hike from Rs. 12,50,000/- to Rs. 20,00,000/-per annum. However, while the market average increment is less than 5% that year, Respondent No.4 gave 16% increment to Petitioner and hiked his compensation to Rs.14,50,000/- per annum. Petitioner received the communication of his last hike on 09.08.2024 with effect from 01.07.2023 and accordingly, received his hiked / updated salary and a previous variable component of Rs.50,000/- on 11.08.2023 and immediately within couple of hours, tendered his resignation through e mail, purportedly 'due to personal reasons. Petitioner received the communication of his last hike on 09.08.2024 with effect from 01.07.2023 and accordingly, received his hiked / updated salary and a previous variable component of Rs.50,000/- on 11.08.2023 and immediately within couple of hours, tendered his resignation through e mail, purportedly 'due to personal reasons. Pertinent to submit that during this period, Petitioner was actively involved in key project deliverables and his abrupt resignation was enormously detrimental and disruptive for the team work under progress as well as for the enforceable commitments with the clients of Respondent herein. 5.3. In the given circumstances, Petitioner's decision to resign and his ensuing actions were disruptive to the business operations of Respondent No.4 and it became evident that petitioner intentionally orchestrated several actions against Respondent No.4. Petitioner refused to adhere to the key employee contract and made false statements in an attempt to expedite his relieving process. Despite the efforts of Respondent to uphold the agreed terms, petitioner declined to cooperate and approached Respondent No.3 in October, 2023, seeking help in getting exit formalities. Respondent No.3 comprehended the situation and guided petitioner and Respondent herein through amicable settlement process. Respondent No.3 suggested this Respondent to pay leave encashment to petitioner and though that is highly debatable in the given circumstances, respondent herein accepted the same for the sake of amicable settlement and paid the same. Further, the amicable settlement between petitioner and Respondent No.4 happened out of the Court, but under the guidance, monitoring and mediation of Respondent No.3 only. Petitioner insisted for final settlement and return of company's properties to happen in the office of Respondent No.3 and the same had taken place accordingly on 21.09.2023, as Petitioner insisted. Therefore, the earlier representation given by petitioner to Respondent No.3 in October, 2023 stands settled for all purposes; assuming but not admitting that the same is not yet disposed technically, even then the same is infructuous and shall be deemed to be non-est. Further, petitioner, having completed all his exit formalities with this Respondent, got relieved on 21.09.2023 and joined another company. 5.4. While so, apparently as an afterthought, petitioner caused a legal notice to respondent No.4, with all untenable claims and contentions; and subsequently filed the present writ petition with all false claims and allegations. Respondent No.4 caused appropriate reply to the said legal notice issued on behalf of the petitioner. 5.4. While so, apparently as an afterthought, petitioner caused a legal notice to respondent No.4, with all untenable claims and contentions; and subsequently filed the present writ petition with all false claims and allegations. Respondent No.4 caused appropriate reply to the said legal notice issued on behalf of the petitioner. Except the representation given to Respondent No.3 in October, 2023 - which was already settled and resolved amicably and implemented already, as mentioned supra, petitioner did not initiate any proceeding what so ever before any of the official Respondents against Respondent No.4. Therefore in the light of the above submissions, all the material allegations and claims of petitioner are totally denied as false, fabricated, concocted, distorted and invented for the purpose of creating this litigation. The allegations that the commitment agreements were given one month after employment and that copies of the same were not given to petitioner are categorically denied. Also the allegations about the work culture at respondent No.4 company and petitioner's attempts to resign etcetera are categorically denied as false, fabricated and concocted accordingly. Further the claim that petitioner lost employment opportunity because of Respondent No.4 is categorically denied. The document being relied by petitioner is reasonably apprehended to be a fake and fabricated one, and even as per that, petitioner did not lose any opportunity as he was relieved on 21.11.2023 while the joining date was purportedly given before 25.11.2023. Further, all the claims and allegations about different payments are denied to be totally false and distorted, and in any case, the same was already resolved out of Court and effected at the instance and guidance of Respondent No.3, to the satisfaction of petitioner. As such, in the light of the above submissions, it was stated that petitioner is not entitled for any relief, much less the reliefs as prayed for. 6. Petitioner filed reply to the counter of Respondents 1 to 3 stating that counter submitted by the Respondent No. 3 (ICL RRD) is vague and not addressing the moot point i.e. to confirm if the "Employment Bond" is legal in Telangana State or NOT. The statement that JCL RRD requested Respondent No 4 to comply with the laws, shows that JCL-RRD is not directing the laws to be implemented through the powers vested in him. The statement that JCL RRD requested Respondent No 4 to comply with the laws, shows that JCL-RRD is not directing the laws to be implemented through the powers vested in him. It is the first time that the respected ICL-RRD is citing that recovery of wages related concern could be filed before the "Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy" before whom the petition has to be filed. Petitioner had been told this during the third week of June 2024, i.e. very recently and petitioner had already moved a petition for wages recovery under Section 50 of the 1988 Act and the said proceedings will progress as per the law. 6.1. Further, petitioner in reply submits that in page 3, last para of the counter by the Respondent No. 3 (JCL RRD), they have confirmed that the matter before them pertaining to the representation submitted to them, by the petitioner, dated 10.10.2023 was not solved, as after the four meetings, the parties did not turn up to the meetings, hence the matter was NOT solved in their presence. 7. Further in so far as the counter of Respondent No.4 is concerned, at page 5, it is admitted that they indulge in "minimum period of service to prevent attritions". Signing of bonds or any minimum period service is illegal under Section 5 of the 1976 Act and thus, void under Section 23 of the 1872 Act. Respondent No 4 did not produce any evidence to show that they provided training and invested in the skills of petitioner. Petitioner denies such claims and states that after joining of any company, in whatever capacity, all employees go through administrative training to know how to use tools (websites, software, etc.) of the company, which cannot be termed as the claim of company that they are improving the skills of petitioner. Respondent No 4 made malicious allegations and petitioner did not make actions to disrupt the business of Respondent 4. Respondent No 4 made malicious allegations and petitioner did not make actions to disrupt the business of Respondent 4. As admitted by Respondent No. 3, the matter was not solved in the office of the JCURRD, as petitioner was threatened with prolonged legal actions by Respondent No. 4 in case the amount of Rs.5,90,000/-is not paid, to which petitioner agreed as he (naturally being in a position to be deprived of his experience letter, without which securing next employment is difficult) and paid the remaining amount to Respondent No. 4 i.e. additional amount of Rs.1,35,911/- as admitted at page 18 of the counter of the Respondent No. 4. Not paying an employee their salary by 5 th day of the subsequent month is illegal under Section 38 of the 1988 Act, thus making the action of withholding salary by Respondent No. 4 an illegal act. 7.1. Further, the issue was never solved amicably and only through coercive tactics i.e. by withholding the leave encashment of 60 days, by not granting the "Certificate of service" of the petitioner, depriving him of his Statutory rights, thus committing grave violations of law. As such, the same cannot be termed as an amicable settlement. It was the further contention of petitioner that the inaction of Respondents 1 to 3 in implementing the laws (Central and State laws), petitioner was put to hardship and his Fundamental Rights under Article 21 (1) was harmed as he was made to sign an Employment Bond, despite the law prohibiting it and the State did not take any definitive action against it, despite nine months since 10.10.2023 (date of representation). When the State department, responsible to implement the laws, against the Private Companies failed, as evident from the records, petitioner has no other remedy than to approach this Court to implement the prohibition of "Bonded Labour" provisions in the State since it is in larger interest that this practice be declared unconstitutional and direct Respondent No. 1 to take necessary steps in this regard. 8. 8. Petitioner in his reply to inspection report, stated that inspection report of Respondent No. 3 dated 26.10.2024, found multiple other employees who also were made to execute Employment Bonds and who are required to pay the amount from Rs.3 to 8 lakh rupees + GST as follows: Sl.No. Name Employment Bond Amount 1 Veerapaneni Lohitha 2 years 5 Lacs 2 Bhavirisetty Gopi Teja 8 Lacs + GST 3 Kusuma Sree Vidya 2 years 3 Lacs 8.1. Petitioner states that no report has clear details that respondent No. 4 is a habitual offender and had made multiple employees sign employment agreements, despite prohibition under Section 5 read with Section 23 of the 1976 Act and also contrary to Section 66 of the 1988 Act which makes any agreement contrary to the 1988 Act "void". It is also to be taken into consideration that the actual employment offer issued to three employees mentioned above is not produced before this Court or the employment bond agreement also not produced by the authority concerned and only a written statement to that effect is submitted. When the law prohibits an employment bonds, the question of parties agreeing to it does not arise. Withholding of the salary of petitioner, for three months is violation of Section 38 of the 1988 Act, which mandates establishments to pay the employee before the expiration of the 5 th day after each wage period. Hence, violating one law or the other, to achieve what they wanted is evident. Further, the notice period clause is also confirmed to be in violation of Section 47 of the 1988 Act. Petitioner states that the 1872 Act is a pre-independence legislation and thus attracts the "Doctrine of Eclipse" and the Constitution of India is the supreme legislation for this Country, in which Article 23 prohibits any forced labour in any form. The private companies making employees sign employment bonds, after initial employment contract was signed (usually after 90 days gap) is clearly an act "undue influence" and exploiting the position of dominance that the employer is in. The minimum duration clause is not in the employment contract, but only as an additional annexure is issued to the employees, who are in helpless situation after entering the employment contract, but only as an additional annexure is issued to the employees, who are in helpless situation after entering the employment contract. The minimum duration clause is not in the employment contract, but only as an additional annexure is issued to the employees, who are in helpless situation after entering the employment contract, but only as an additional annexure is issued to the employees, who are in helpless situation after entering the employment contract. Further petitioner states that an agreement that has unlawful objects, is void under Section 24 of Indian Contract Act 1872 and also "Free Consent" is to be obtained only if they are not in violation of Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. 9. Heard Sri R.Vijay Gopal, learned counsel for Petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Labour and Sri B.Pratap, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 10. Before delving with the issue on hand, it is germane to note that Section 27 of the Contract Act provides every agreement which restrains a person from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind is to that extent void. A sole exception is carved out in the proviso with regard to sale of goodwill of a business, in which case the seller may be restrained from carrying on similar business within a reasonable local limit. Though the Contract Act does not profess to be a complete code, Act is exhaustive with regard to the subject matter contained therein. That is to say, validity of a restrictive covenant in an agreement including an employment agreement in regard to restraint in exercise of lawful profession, trade or business has to be tested on the touchstone of Section 27 of the Contract Act. 11. Whether Section 27 operates as a bar to a restrictive covenant during the subsistence of an employment contract fell for decision in Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co., 1967 SCC On Line SC 72 After an illuminating discussion on the subject, the Bench made a distinction between restrictive covenants operating during the subsistence of an employment contract and those operating after its termination. The Bench held as follows:- “17. The result of the above discussion is that considerations against restrictive covenants are different in cases where the restriction is to apply during the period after the termination of the contract than those in cases where it is to operate during the period of the contract. The Bench held as follows:- “17. The result of the above discussion is that considerations against restrictive covenants are different in cases where the restriction is to apply during the period after the termination of the contract than those in cases where it is to operate during the period of the contract. Negative covenants operative during the period of the contract of employment when the employee is bound to serve his employer exclusively are generally not regarded as restraint of trade and therefore do not fall under Section 27 of the Contract Act. A negative covenant that the employee would not engage himself in a trade or business or would not get himself employed by any other master for whom he would perform similar or substantially similar duties is not therefore a restraint of trade unless the contract as aforesaid is unconscionable or excessively harsh or unreasonable or one-sided..” 12. This view was reiterated in Superintendence Company (P) Ltd. v. Krishan Murgai, (1981) 2 SCC 246 . Endorsing the ratio in Golikari (supra) with regard to validity of restrictive covenants during the subsistence of a contract, A.P. Sen, J. held:- “18. Agreements of service, containing a negative covenant preventing the employee from working elsewhere during the term covered by the agreement, are not void under Section 27 of the Contract Act, on the ground that they are in restraint of trade. Such agreements are enforceable. The reason is obvious. The doctrine of restraint of trade never applies during the continuance of a contract of employment; it applies only when the contract comes to an end. While during the period of employment, the courts undoubtedly would not grant any specific performance of a contract of personal service, nevertheless Section 57 of the Specific Relief Act clearly provides for the grant of an injunction to restrain the breach of such a covenant, as it is not in restraint of, but in furtherance of trade. 19. In Niranjan Shankar Golikari case this Court drew a distinction between a restriction in a contract of employment which is operative during the period of employment and one which is to operate after the termination of employment. 19. In Niranjan Shankar Golikari case this Court drew a distinction between a restriction in a contract of employment which is operative during the period of employment and one which is to operate after the termination of employment. After referring to certain English cases where such distinction had been drawn, the Court observed: “A similar distinction has also been drawn by courts in India and a restraint by which a person binds himself during the term of his agreement directly or indirectly not to take service with any other employer or be engaged by a third party has been held not to be void and not against Section 27 of the Contract Act.” 13. What is to be noted in this case is, the continuous employment bond being executed by Respondent No.4 with petitioner for three times. Admittedly, petitioner had joined Respondent No. 4 as an intern during June to August, 2019 and was issued a full time employment offer in September, 2019 through offer letter dated 01.09.2019 and joined the employment under Employee ID: 1182, on the said date itself. Petitioner was made to sign employment bond viz."Surety agreement" for minimum duration of employment by Respondent No. 4, as such after joining in Sep 2019, the following bonds were signed with duration as follows; i. 1st Bond, October 2019, for 24 months ii. 2 nd Bond, June 2021, for 12 months iii. 3 rd Bond, April 2022, for 26 months 14. It is imperative to examine whether the action of respondent No.4 in executing the employment bond for three times would oppose to public policy. It was vehemently argued on behalf of petitioner that Annexure V is part of a standard form contract and his client was compelled to sign on dotted lines. If he did not do so, he would have to forsake career advancement. The terms of the contract were imposed on him through an unequal bargaining mechanism. Annexure V being an unreasonable, onerous and ex-proportionate measure resulting in unjust enrichment for respondent No.4 is opposed to public policy. At the time of his resignation, respondent was compelled to comply with the illegal condition and had done so under protest. In these circumstances, he cannot be precluded from challenging the condition as violative of fundamental rights and public policy. 15. At the time of his resignation, respondent was compelled to comply with the illegal condition and had done so under protest. In these circumstances, he cannot be precluded from challenging the condition as violative of fundamental rights and public policy. 15. It is to be noted that in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly, (1986) 3 SCC 156 , the Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with interpretation of standard form employment contracts in the backdrop of unequal bargaining power of employees. The Bench opined, if such contracts are unconscionable, unfair, unreasonable and injurious to public interest, they shall be deemed void in law being opposed to public policy. The Supreme Court held as under: “ 91………………the majority of such contracts are in a standard or prescribed form or consist of a set of rules. They are not contracts between individuals containing terms meant for those individuals alone. Contracts in prescribed or standard forms or which embody a set of rules as part of the contract are entered into by the party with superior bargaining power with a large number of persons who have far less bargaining power or no bargaining power at all. Such contracts which affect a large number of persons or a group or groups of persons, if they are unconscionable, unfair and unreasonable, are injurious to the public interest. To say that such a contract is only voidable would be to compel each person with whom the party with superior bargaining power had contracted to go to court to have the contract adjudged voidable. This would only result in multiplicity of litigation which no court should encourage and would also not be in the public interest. Such a contract or such a clause in a contract ought, therefore, to be adjudged void. While the law of contracts in England is mostly judge-made, the law of contracts in India is enacted in a statute, namely, the Indian Contract Act, 1872. In order that such a contract should be void, it must fall under one of the relevant sections of the Indian Contract Act. The only relevant provision in the Indian Contract Act which can apply is Section 23 when it states that “The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless ... the court regards it as ...opposed to public policy.” 16. The only relevant provision in the Indian Contract Act which can apply is Section 23 when it states that “The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless ... the court regards it as ...opposed to public policy.” 16. In Superintendence Company (P) Ltd. v. Krishan Murgai, (1981) 2 SCC 246 the Hon’ble Apex Court at Para 59 also held as under: “ 59. It is well settled that employee covenants should be carefully scrutinized because there is inequality of bargaining power between the parties; indeed no bargaining power may occur because the employee is presented with a standard form of contract to accept or reject. At the time of the agreement, the employee may have given little thought to the restriction because of his eagerness for a job; such contracts “tempt improvident persons, for the sake of present gain, to deprive themselves of the power to make future acquisitions, and expose them to imposition and oppression”. 17. In Brojo Nath (supra), the expression ‘public policy’ under the Contract Act was explained in detail by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the same is extracted hereunder: “ 92. The Indian Contract Act does not define the expression “public policy” or “opposed to public policy”. From the very nature of things, the expressions “public policy”, “opposed to public policy”, or “contrary to public policy” are incapable of precise definition. Public policy, however, is not the policy of a particular government. It connotes some matter which concerns the public good and the public interest. The concept of what is for the public good or in the public interest or what would be injurious or harmful to the public good or the public interest has varied from time to time. As new concepts take the place of old, transactions which were once considered against public policy are now being upheld by the courts and similarly where there has been a well recognized head of public policy, the courts have not shirked from extending it to new transactions and changed circumstances and have at times not even flinched from inventing a new head of public policy. 18. In Golikari (supra) , the Hon’ble Apex Court noted the evolving nature of public policy in following words : “12…….The attitude of the courts as regards public policy however has not been inflexible. 18. In Golikari (supra) , the Hon’ble Apex Court noted the evolving nature of public policy in following words : “12…….The attitude of the courts as regards public policy however has not been inflexible. Decisions on public policy have been subject to change and development with the change in trade and in economic thought and the general principle once applicable to agreements in restraints of trade have been considerably modified by later decisions. The rule now is that restraints whether general or partial may be good if they are reasonable. A restraint upon freedom of contract must be shown to be reasonably necessary for the purpose of freedom of trade. A restraint reasonably necessary for the protection of the covenantee must prevail unless some specific ground of public policy can be clearly established against it.” 19. From the above decisions, what is emanating is that in general, public policy relates to matters involving public good and public interest. What is ‘just, fair and reasonable’ in the eyes of society varies with time. Civilizational advancements, growth of knowledge and evolving standards of human rights and dignity alter the contours of public good and policy. From the prism of employer-employee relationship, technological advancements impacting nature and character of work, re-skilling and preservation of scarce specialized workforce in a free market are emerging heads in the public policy domain which need to be factored when terms of an employment contract is tested on the anvil of public policy. Ensuring retention of an efficient and experienced staff contributing to managerial skills was one of the tools inalienable to the interest of such undertakings including Respondent No.4 a software company. This prompted Respondent No.4 to incorporate minimum service tenure for employees, to reduce attrition and improve efficiency. Viewed from this perspective, the restrictive covenant prescribing a minimum term cannot be said to be unconscionable, unfair or unreasonable and thereby in contravention of public policy. 20. There is no controversy with the above enunciation of law but, unfortunately, what is troubling this Court is whether such conditions as prescribed in Annexure V of the contract can be allowed to continue for indefinite period. 20. There is no controversy with the above enunciation of law but, unfortunately, what is troubling this Court is whether such conditions as prescribed in Annexure V of the contract can be allowed to continue for indefinite period. In the instant case, petitioner joined on 01.09.2019 by the time he was asked to execute employment bond; on 22.04.2022, petitioner already completed almost three years and executed two employment bonds earlier; one in October, 2019 for 24 months and the other in June, 2021 for 12 months. This is nothing but the clever attempt of Respondent No.4 in escaping from the scope and ambit of penal provisions which attract Respondent No.4. 21. In Brojo Nath Ganguly’s case , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that an unconscionable bargain or contract is one which is irreconcilable with what is right or reasonable or the terms of which are so unfair and unreasonable that they shock the conscience of the Court. Equity, however, interfered in many cases of harsh or unconscionable bargains. This Court is of the considered opinion that the clever act of Respondent No.4 in restricting its employees in employment bond for indefinite period i.e., by way of executing employment bonds consecutively clearly tantamount to harsh and unconscionable bargain on the part of Respondent No.4 and the inaction on the part of Respondents 1 to 3 when complained about the same cannot be countenanced for the reason that the latter are duty-bound to see that these private organizations are adhering to or complying with the provisions of the statutory laws applicable to them more particularly the provisions of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and the Telangana State Shops & Establishments Act, 1988 besides the fundamental rights guaranteed to petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and 23 of the Constitution of India. 22. This Court feels it is apposite to refer to legal principles relating to interpretation of standard form employment contracts which were summarized by the Apex Court in the recent decision in Vijaya Bank v. Prashan B Naranaware, 2025 INSC 691 . At Para 21, it is held as under: “ 21.The legal principles relating to interpretation of standard form employment contracts may be summarized as follows:- (i) Standard form employment contracts prima facie evidence unequal bargaining power. At Para 21, it is held as under: “ 21.The legal principles relating to interpretation of standard form employment contracts may be summarized as follows:- (i) Standard form employment contracts prima facie evidence unequal bargaining power. (ii) Whenever the weaker party to such a contract pleads undue influence/coercion or alleges that the contract or any term thereof is opposed to public policy, the Court shall examine such plea keeping in mind the unequal status of the parties and the context in which the contractual obligations were created. (iii) The onus to prove that a restrictive covenant in an employment contract is not in restraint of lawful employment or is not opposed to public policy, is on the covenantee i.e. the employer and not on the employee.” 23. This Court is conscious of the fact that the Hon’ble Apex Court held that employment bonds are generally valid and enforceable, as established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank v. Prashant B. Narnaware, which confirmed that minimum service period and penalty clauses do not violate the Indian Contract Act. However, it is settled principle of law that Employment Bonds are void if they impose unreasonable restrictions, are coercive, or are against public policy, making them unenforceable. At the cost of repetition, it is stated that the clever act of Respondent No.4 in restricting its employees in employment bond for indefinite period i.e., by way of executing employment bonds consecutively clearly tantamount to ‘harsh and unconscionable bargain’ on their part and the inaction on the part of Respondents 1 to 3 when complained about the same by petitioner cannot be countenanced in any manner. 24. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that Respondents 1 to 3 have utterly failed in addressing the specific complaint raised by petitioner in regard to harsh and unconscionable bargain on the part of respondent No.4, as stated supra, including imposition of liquidated damages to the tune of Rs.5 Lakhs in the event of resignation. Admittedly, neither the 4 th respondent nor Respondents 1 to 3 countered with respect to the proportionality of the liquidated damages to the tune of Rs.5 Lakhs in the event of resignation. Admittedly, neither the 4 th respondent nor Respondents 1 to 3 countered with respect to the proportionality of the liquidated damages to the tune of Rs.5 Lakhs in the event of resignation. Therefore, without going into the said issue, this Court directs Respondents 1 to 3 to deal with the aspect of liquidated damages as to whether it would amount to ‘unconscionable bargain’ in view of the aforesaid discussion or not. 25. Before parting with this case, this Court would like to record that, during the course of hearing, while interacting with the learned counsel, this Court engaged in a series of queries to understand the realities of employment in the software sector. Upon conclusion of the arguments, and having reflected upon the submissions made in open Court, the following observations emerged, which in the considered view of this Court warrant serious deliberation by the Legislature. 25.1. Contrary to the widely-held perception that software engineers work in posh environments, drawing high salaries, enjoying foreign travel, food coupons, and round-the-clock cab facilities, the lived reality of a substantial segment of this workforce is starkly different. Most software services in India are delivered through offshore outsourcing, necessitating work aligned with foreign time-zones. As a result, a large number of employees are compelled to work during night hours, disrupting their biological rhythms, forcing irregular eating habits, and frequently relying on tea/coffee/stimulants to remain awake. These conditions, by all accounts, have undeniable long-term implications on health. Studies conducted by AIG also revealed about compounding effects on circadian cycles, with women employees particularly reporting issues relating to conception and reproductive health. 25.2. Recently, a Member of the Legislative Assembly raised pertinent questions: Are labour laws applicable to software employees? Do they have a prescribed retirement age? Upon retirement, are they entitled to any benefits? What institutional facilities are available to them, despite the long hours, multiple time-zones, and unrelenting pressure to meet delivery schedules for clients located across the globe? Society has witnessed deeply unfortunate instances where employees, unable to withstand sustained stress, have taken extreme steps. 25.3. The so-called “perks” of a software engineer often mask significant personal sacrifices. Many employees lack regular communication with parents, are unable to spend quality time with their children, and seldom experience the stability of a standard day shift. Their lives are adjusted entirely to client-driven timelines. 25.3. The so-called “perks” of a software engineer often mask significant personal sacrifices. Many employees lack regular communication with parents, are unable to spend quality time with their children, and seldom experience the stability of a standard day shift. Their lives are adjusted entirely to client-driven timelines. This has led to rising cases of severe health disorders—chronic back problems, spondylitis, obesity- related ailments, and even depression and psychological related problems at a surprisingly young age, and reproductive health challenges among women employees. Medical conditions once associated with individuals in their late sixties are now commonly observed among young software professionals. A recent study by AIG has revealed alarming trends, including high prevalence of fatty liver and lifestyle disorders linked to prolonged sedentary work and stress. 25.4. It is noteworthy that political leaders across the spectrum, including prominent voices from the Left, have acknowledged the importance of this sector. The software industry is among India’s most advanced, globally recognised, and economically vital sectors. It has transformed the lives of countless middle-class families and contributed immensely to the nation’s international standing. 25.5. While the sector offers relatively higher compensation for hard work, it is simultaneously a web of uncertainties. Employees operate under constant pressure, with little assurance of job security. Instances were brought to the Court’s notice, such as the termination of hundreds of trainees by a major IT corporation on the ground of failure to clear internal assessments. Employees must constantly update skills merely to remain employable, and yet, after years of service, many face the prospect of sudden unemployment without any social security cushion. 25.6. Questions of social protection therefore arise. Employees who have diligently paid income tax for a decade find themselves without medical insurance during unexpected periods of unemployment. Representations have been made that the Government should consider extending health insurance coverage—at least for limited periods—to such taxpayers during stretches of involuntary joblessness. Comparisons were drawn to other jurisdictions where taxpayers receive medical insurance support during unemployed phases. It was submitted that while various welfare schemes support the poorest sections of society, an employed middle-class taxpayer—whose labour contributes significantly to national income and foreign exchange—receives little to no social security in return. 26. Thus, issues of far-reaching significance emerge: Should software employees not have basic social security? Should there not be statutory health protections, norms for working hours, or minimum safeguards against arbitrary termination? 26. Thus, issues of far-reaching significance emerge: Should software employees not have basic social security? Should there not be statutory health protections, norms for working hours, or minimum safeguards against arbitrary termination? Should companies not bear certain responsibilities towards long-serving employees? These concerns, voiced by a section of society, that substantially contributes to the nation’s economic growth, merits urgent and comprehensive attention. This Court is of the considered view that the Legislature may deem it appropriate to examine these issues in depth and consider framing suitable laws to ensure the welfare, health, and social security of the software-working community. 27. IN THE RESULT, the Writ Petition is allowed in part with the above observations. No costs. Consequently all the miscellaneous applications if any are closed. 28. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.