in reality, most of the companies want a five-year bond from the employees and the penalty in case of

breach of such employment bonds is that the employees will have to return one years salary to the
employers. Even some of the companies also mention that the provident fund is subject to completion of a
five-year service, otherwise the employees will not be entitled to receive benefits of provident funds.

Such conditions seem to be unreasonable. In worst scenario, employers do not issue the release letters
when employees want to resign or terminate their employment before completion of the compulsory
period stipulated in the employment bond. Without release letters from the previous employers employees
become unable to join any other company and therefore suffer a lot.

Such kind of act on the part of an employer, eg retaining the original educational certificates, or creating
any kind of impediments for the employees to join another job should be considered as illegal.

Although employees are reluctant to raise questions on any exorbitant term but employers should be
aware that any exorbitant term can be challenged on the basis of the provisions enshrined in the
Constitution of Bangladesh and under other relevant laws ie, labour law, contract law, etc.

Article 34 of Constitution of Bangladesh provides that All forms of forced labour are prohibited and any
contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law. In addition, Article
40 of the Constitution of Bangladesh ensures freedom of profession or occupation which is lawful.

The enforceability of an employment bond can also be challenged on the ground that it restrains
the lawful exercise of a profession, trade or business. Section 27 of Contract Act 1872 provides
that every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or
business of any kind, is to that extent void.

To take up any lawful profession or occupation is a fundamental right. Therefore, any term and condition
of the employment agreement which directly or indirectly either compels employees to serve employers or
restrict them from joining other employers is violation of the fundamental rights and thus are not tenable in
the eyes of law. An employee by signing a contract of employment does not sign a bond of slavery.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, an employment bond will be considered to be reasonable if it is

necessary to protect the interests of the employer, and the employment bond is drafted with appropriate
compulsory period and reasonable amount of penalty. Otherwise, the validity of the such employment
bonds may be questioned.

But in term of trade secret there are also some provisions which express that restraint in trade in valid
under section 36 of the partnership act if that that contains similar type of business.

estraint of trade establishes as a general rule that restraint-of-trade-clauses are void at common law, except
when they protect a legitimate interest and are reasonable in scope.

A restraint of trade is an obligation voluntarily undertaken by the employee to refrain from the exercise of
freedom of trade in favour of the employer in the exercise of freedom of contract. It is therefore prima facie valid
and the onus is on the employee who seeks to resile from its burden to show that it is nonetheless against
public interest and unenforceable. See Magna Alloys and Research (SA) (Pty) Ltd v Ellis 1984 (4) SA
874(A); Book v Davidson 1988(1) ZLR 365(S) at 385D.