The Bombay High Court has set aside an interlocutory order passed by the Industrial Court directing an aviation company to issue a relieving letter and service certificate to an employee who resigned in breach of a three-year service bond executed after undergoing specialised training. Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that when an employee leaves employment before completing the bond period without serving the stipulated notice or paying liquidated damages, the employer is justified in not accepting the resignation and cannot be compelled to issue relieving letter or experience certificate.
The petitioners, Bharat Aviation Pvt. Ltd. and its director, challenged the order dated 13 January 2025 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai on an interim application in Complaint (ULP) No. 450 of 2024. The respondent had executed an agreement on 7 November 2022 undertaking to serve the company for three years after completing specialised training on Boeing B777 aircraft conducted by American Airlines. The agreement provided that if the employee wished to leave before completion of three years, he would have to give 60 daysā notice and pay liquidated damages of Rs. 10 lakhs. The respondent resigned on 9 April 2024 without serving notice or paying damages and stopped attending duties from 12 April 2024. The petitioners declined to issue relieving letter and service certificate citing breach of the bond.
The respondent filed a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 seeking issuance of relieving letter acknowledging his service and excellent performance along with monetary dues. The Industrial Court, by the impugned order, directed the petitioners to issue the relieving letter and service certificate.
Justice Marne observed that the respondent had prima facie breached the covenants of the agreement dated 7 November 2022. The Court noted the respondentās own admissions in his resignation email and complaint regarding the training received which enabled him to upgrade from Aircraft Maintenance Technician to Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. The Court held that breach of the agreement gives rise to a cause of action for recovery of liquidated damages and merely because the employer has not yet filed proceedings for recovery, it cannot be inferred that the employee stands relieved of his contractual obligations.
The Court referred to its earlier Division Bench judgment in Amrit Pal Singh v. Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd. and the Supreme Court decision in Vijaya Bank v. Prashant B Narnaware, observing that service bonds requiring minimum tenure are enforceable and do not amount to restraint of trade. It noted that a trained employee who acts in breach of contract cannot insist that the employer must cooperate and assist him in securing alternate employment by issuing certificates. The Court observed that compelling issuance of such certificates could encourage unhealthy competition by enabling poaching of trained engineers.
Justice Marne held that the Industrial Court erred in granting final relief at the interim stage. The resignation being unilateral and in breach of contract, the employer was justified in not accepting it, and issuance of relieving letter is a consequential act post acceptance of resignation. The writ petition was accordingly allowed and the impugned order was set aside. The Court clarified that its findings are prima facie and directed the Industrial Court to decide the main complaint expeditiously, preferably within six months. It was also observed that the respondent may offer a reasonable amount towards liquidated damages to resolve the controversy.
Case Details:
Title: Bharat Aviation Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Rahul Sudhindra Soni
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 334 of 2026
Coram: Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Date of Judgment: 05.05.2026 (Reserved on 23.04.2026)
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 