Understanding Employment Law

A case law every IT professional must read, understand and implement. Varun Tyagi, a skilled software engineer, worked on the POSHAN Tracker project, a high-priority initiative of the Government of India, through his employer, Daffodil Software Pvt. Ltd. Over time, thanks to his dedication and the company’s own training, he was promoted and made a lead developer on the project. After serving his full notice period and resigning properly, Varun received an offer to join Digital India Corporation (DIC), the very agency for which he was already contributing his work. This was a natural next step in his career. He accepted the offer and joined them. But what happened next is something many IT professionals never expect. Varun was dragged to court by his former employer. They claimed he had violated the non-compete clause in his employment agreement. According to the company, Varun couldn’t work with any of their clients or business associates, even after leaving the job, for the next three years. They claimed he could misuse confidential information, even though all intellectual property rights of the project belonged to DIC, not the company. The trial court sided with the employer and passed an order restraining Varun from working with DIC. Imagine leaving your job legally, only to be told by a court that you can’t join your new employer. Varun didn’t give up. He challenged the order before the Delhi High Court, and justice prevailed. On June 25, 2025, the Delhi High Court ruled in Varun’s favour and quashed the injunction. The court made it clear: 1. Any clause that restricts an employee from working elsewhere after resignation is void under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. 2. Companies cannot impose post-employment restrictions on someone’s right to earn a living. 3. Confidentiality concerns cannot be misused to block fair career progression. 4. Non-compete clauses that extend beyond the term of employment have no place under Indian law. Have you ever read the non-compete clause in your employment agreement? Chances are, it’s already there. In fact, almost all IT companies include such clauses in standard offer letters, and most employees, especially freshers and juniors, sign without knowing the legal consequences. This is where exploitation begins. Companies bank on your silence, your fear of legal trouble, and your unawareness. But the law is clear. Your right to earn, to switch jobs, and to grow cannot be curtailed just because you once worked with a client. Employees should read, question, and understand your employment terms. And more importantly, should know that the law is on your side. Your career is yours, not your former employer’s property. #ITEmployees #LabourLaw #NonCompeteClause #EmployeeRights #EmploymentLaw #DelhiHighCourt #RightToWork #KnowYourRights

Hey HR…  I've been a bit rough on you guys lately.  An apology is in order… HR, apologize to all the employees that trusted you with their workplace issues. For every worker who brought forward harassment only to be labeled "difficult." For the employees who reported discrimination and suddenly found themselves under performance review. For the dedicated team members who spoke up about safety concerns and were told they "weren't team players." I've seen your playbook from both sides now: As Corporate Counsel, I gained insight into how workplace complaints were handled. As an employment attorney, I see the aftermath of destroyed careers. The pattern is painfully consistent: 1. Employee reports a legitimate concern 2. HR assures confidentiality and support 3. Documentation against the employee mysteriously begins 4. "Performance issues" suddenly appear 5. Employee is pushed out or terminated Just last month, a client showed me her spotless 4-year review history. Two weeks after reporting harassment? Suddenly "not meeting expectations" in every category. HR isn't broken. It's working exactly as designed - to protect the company, not employees. I'm not asking HR to change their mission. I'm asking employees to understand it. Document everything. Be strategic. Know your rights. Protect yourself first. Because the system won't. #EmploymentAttorney #CaliforniaEmploymentLaw #EmployeeRights Disclaimer: This information is for educational purposes only and does not replace professional legal advice. It does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Please consult a qualified attorney for advice on your specific legal situation.

Background checks. Sensitive data. Zero DPDP compliance. The most sensitive personal data comes from your hiring process. 📌 Criminal records. 📌 Financial history. 📌 Past employment. 📌 Address verification. 📌 Education certificates. And almost no Indian company has a DPDP-compliant process for any of it. Here is the legal reality your HR team doesn't know: Your company = Data Fiduciary. Your BGV vendor = Data Processor. Your candidate = Data Principal with enforceable rights under DPDP. Every obligation that applies to your customer data — applies here too. The 5 gaps I find in almost every BGV process I review: 1️⃣ Consent was never properly obtained. Most companies collect a generic clause inside the offer letter. Under DPDP — consent for a background check must be specific to that purpose, informed about what will be verified and with which sources, and separate from the employment acceptance. "I accept this offer" is not consent to a criminal record check. 2️⃣ No signed DPA with the BGV vendor. You have a commercial agreement with your BGV vendor. Under DPDP — that vendor relationship requires a Data Processing Agreement with breach notification timelines, deletion obligations, sub-processor controls, and Data Principal rights flowing down. A commercial agreement and a DPA are not the same document. 3️⃣ Candidate rights are completely unaddressed. Under DPDP, your candidate has the right to access what data was collected about them, from which sources, and what the report concluded. Most HR teams have no process for this. No one has asked before — but it is now a legal right, not a courtesy. 4️⃣ BGV reports are retained indefinitely. The candidate joined — or didn't. The report is still in your HRMS, your email, your recruiter's drive — years later. Under DPDP — personal data must be deleted once the purpose is fulfilled. The purpose of a background check is the hiring decision. Once made — the legal basis for retaining the report ends. 5️⃣ Cross-border transfers nobody mapped. Most BGV vendors verify employment and academic records through international databases. That is a cross-border data transfer. Under DPDP Section 16 — your company is responsible for it. Not your vendor. Does your BGV vendor's contract specify which countries your candidate's data flows to? _____________________________ The background verification industry processes thousands of sensitive personal data records every month in India. Almost none of it is DPDP-compliant. And the liability doesn't sit with the BGV vendor. It sits with the company that initiated the check and is the Data Fiduciary. Does your company have a signed DPA with your BGV vendor? ___________________ I help companies build DPDP-compliant hiring data processes — from candidate consent to vendor DPAs to rights response frameworks. Book 1:1 call to find out where you stand. (Link in comment.)

An employee is injured at work and lodges a workers' compensation claim. The employer disputes liability, and weekly compensation is stopped. If you're the employer, do you: (a) reach out to the employee to assess his fitness to return to work; or (b) ghost the employee, and when he asks if he is still employed, say you'd be happy to accept his resignation, then terminate his employment when he doesn't respond? It should be (a), but in Wilson v Care Park Pty Ltd it was (b), and the Fair Work Commission found the dismissal to be unfair. Mr Wilson was a Parking Patrol Officer. In November 2024, he was hit by a car while working and tore his meniscus. He lodged a workers' compensation claim and was absent from work. In February 2025, the employer disputed liability for his workers' compensation claim. The Tribunal found there was a reasonably arguable case and ordered that no weekly compensation be paid. Mr Wilson expected his employer would contact him to discuss his wellbeing and the 'way forward'. He didn't hear anything, so in early March he sent an email asking his employer to confirm if he was still employed and that his annual leave be paid if he wasn't. His employer responded by saying that his annual leave would be paid if he chose to resign and that they would 'be happy' to accept his resignation. When he didn't respond, they terminated his employment. They said this was due to his extended absence from the workplace and the outcome of his workers' compensation claim, which meant he had not been able to fulfill his duties throughout the year, with no foreseeable return to work. Mr Wilson subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal claim. The employer argued Mr Wilson abandoned his employment as he made no effort to engage with them after emailing in early March. The Commission found the employee had made a legitimate enquiry about his employment, which the employer responded to by simply inviting his resignation. It was found this did not show that Mr Wilson intended to repudiate the duty to meet the obligations in his contract of employment. Further, following the invitation to resign, the employer did not engage with the employee at all. The Commission found this was a troubling and inexcusable disinterest to Mr Wilson's welfare and if and when he would be fit to return to work, stating they should have taken steps to confirm the status of his employment and required him to provide medical information about his fitness for work. The Commission found Mr Wilson had not abandoned him employment and there was not a valid reason for his dismissal, rendering it unfair. A reminder that employers do have obligations to contact injured employees about their fitness for work. Mr Wilson may not have responded or provided it, but he wasn't given the opportunity. The Commission also commented that Mr Wilson likely would have abandoned his employment if he failed to respond to repeated contact, but no attempts were made.

Do you run a local operation that is head-quartered overseas? You need to know this - global HR policies cannot be copied and pasted. And you’ll face hefty fines if you’re failing to localise. If you’re running the Australian arm of a global business and your HR support comes from a head office in the US, UK, EU, Asia (or anywhere else) listen up. One of the biggest mistakes I see is international companies trying to apply their home country's employment rules here in Australia, without understanding how wildly different our legal and compliance environment actually is. I’ve worked with businesses headquartered in the US, UK, and Singapore, where their local legislations may allow them to ‘just terminate’ someone, ‘just cut their hours’, or ‘just change their contract’. Spoiler alert: you can’t just do that under Australian law. Australia has its own Fair Work Act, modern awards, and compliance standards, many of which are far more protective of employees than those in other jurisdictions. Get it wrong, and you're not just risking internal conflict. You’re risking hefty penalties, legal action, and reputational damage. If you’re caught between local laws and offshore expectations, you’re not alone. My advice? Let me explain to their HR team how it works down here. Because ignoring the local context isn’t just frustrating, it’s dangerous. #NoFluffHR #HRCompliance #SMEHR #HRConsulting

Hey #linkedinfam, The UAE has introduced updated labour regulations to improve transparency, strengthen worker rights, and promote modern employment structures: 🔹 1. Mandatory Fixed-Term Contracts Unlimited contracts remain discontinued. All employees must shift to fixed-term contracts (max 3 years). Renewals allowed with clear terms and contract transparency. 🔹 2. Expansion of Flexible Work Models reforms further support: Remote working Part-time jobs Temporary roles Freelancing Job sharing Employees in these categories receive equal pay, leave & protections. 🔹 3. Probation & Termination Rules Probation period cannot exceed six months. Termination requires written notice. 2026 regulations highlight structured procedures for resignations and non-renewals. 🔹 4. Hours of Work, Overtime & Leave Standard: 48 hours/week. Clear overtime rates for extra hours, night shifts, and public holidays. Strengthened rules for annual leave, sick leave, maternity, paternity & parental leave. 🔹 5. Stronger Employee Protections Zero tolerance towards discrimination, harassment & workplace misconduct. Equal treatment for remote and onsite staff. Digital payslips and detailed wage records now mandatory under labour law compliance. 🔹 6. Higher Penalties for Violations Substantial fines for misuse of work permits, failure to pay salaries, or violations of employee rights. Stronger enforcement mechanisms introduced across the private sector. 💡 What Employees Should Do : Review your contract — ensure it aligns with the new fixed-term requirement. Understand your leave, overtime, and notice period rights. Stay informed about workplace updates implemented under the law. #LabourLaw #UAEJobs #UAEHRProfessionals #jobseekers #itjobs

This is a claim to watch out for if you're thinking of dismissing an employee before they reach 6 months of employment (or 12 months for small businesses). 👇 Here's how it works: 👉 A person gets protection from unfair dismissal once they have completed the 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗺 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗱. That's 6 months if you have 15 or more employees and 12 months if you have less than 15.    👉 Being able to initiate or participate in unfair dismissal proceedings is a workplace right.    👉 It's unlawful to dismiss an employee if a substantial and operative reason for doing so is to prevent them from exercising a workplace right.    👉 Therefore, if you dismiss an employee before they have completed the 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗺 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗱 because you want to prevent them from pursuing an unfair dismissal claim, they can claim that you've taken unlawful adverse action against them in breach of the Fair Work Act. The potential for this claim was first raised in the Qantas outsourcing case that ended up in the High Court a few years ago. The issue there was whether it's unlawful to take adverse action against someone to prevent the exercise of a workplace right that hasn't arisen yet but could do in the future. Qantas used this unfair dismissal scenario as an example to argue why future workplace rights shouldn't be protected. They argued that doing so would thwart the statutory intention that employees aren’t entitled to remedies for unfair dismissal before the 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗺 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗱 ends. The majority dismissed that argument and, in doing so, left the door open for employees to bring this type of claim. After that we all thought that it's probably not a good idea to dismiss someone the day before the 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗺 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗱 ends. Well, somebody did. And it ended up in the Federal Court. Actually, they did it at 4:40pm the day before, which, as the Court pointed out, was about 7 hours before the employee became protected from unfair dismissal. They made the decision to terminate in a hastily organised executive committee meeting and before an investigation report into the conduct of the employee had been finalised. It had all the hallmarks of a rushed dismissal to prevent the employee from gaining unfair dismissal rights. The Court found that it gave rise to a prima facie case of unlawful adverse action and reinstated the employee pending a final hearing. This was an interim decision only, but the idea that a dismissal like this could amount to unlawful adverse action was accepted without question in the reasons for judgment. The proceedings were discontinued soon after, so we never got a final decision. So this is a potential claim to be mindful of. The decision was 𝘋𝘢𝘣𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘺 𝘷 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘍𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭𝘴 [2024] FCA 1074. ♻️  Please repost this if it would help others. #humanresources #employmentlaw

Recently, the Delhi High Court delivered a landmark ruling: employees cannot be forced to either return to a former employer or remain idle. In the case Varun Tyagi v. Daffodil Software, Justice Tejas Karia struck down non‑compete clauses that restricted post‑employment choices, declaring them void under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act. If a contract unfairly limits your ability to work elsewhere after leaving a job, it likely won’t hold up in court. Importantly, the Court emphasised that the freedom to take up better employment is a fundamental right, even if you handled confidential info earlier. A huge win for employee mobility and contractual fairness. Employers, take note: restructuring clauses that curb post-employment movement is the way forward. #employment #delhihc #contracts

The Employment Rights Act has been on the horizon for a while - but we are now at the point where the first wave of changes have come into effect. I have shared an article breaking down what is changing and what it means in practice. As an experienced employment lawyer, I know how easy it is for legislative updates to feel like background noise until they suddenly matter. But these changes are the beginning of many that will have an impact on day-to-day decision making - particularly around how businesses manage people, processes and risk. What matters most is not just knowing what has changed, but understanding how it plays out in real situations: ➡️ What needs to be updated? ➡️ Where are the pressure points likely to be? ➡️ How can these changes be approached in a way that works operationally, not just legally? For some businesses, these changes will mean small adjustments. For others, they will be a good opportunity to take a step back and sense check whether existing practices still work. I will keep you all updated as to how things move forward...