If you’ve signed a service bond after getting specialized training from your employer — and you’re thinking about leaving early — a recent Bombay High Court ruling is worth your attention. In Bharat Aviation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rahul Sudhindra Soni (Writ Petition No. 334 of 2026, decided 5 May 2026), the Court held that an employer cannot be compelled to issue a relieving letter or experience certificate to an employee who resigns in breach of a valid service bond, at least not at an interim stage of litigation.
What Happened
The employee, an aircraft maintenance engineer, had been trained on Boeing 777 aircraft through an arrangement between his employer and American Airlines. In return for this training, he signed a bond in November 2022 agreeing to serve the company for three years, or pay liquidated damages of Rs. 10 lakhs and give 60 days’ notice if he left early.
He resigned in April 2024, less than two years into the bond period, without serving the notice period and without offering to pay the damages. When the company refused to issue him a relieving letter and experience certificate, he approached the Industrial Court in Mumbai with an unfair labour practice complaint, asking for these documents along with unpaid dues. The Industrial Court granted him interim relief, directing the company to issue the relieving letter. The employer challenged this order before the Bombay High Court.
The Court’s Reasoning
Justice Sandeep V. Marne set aside the Industrial Court’s interim order, making several key observations:
A bond is enforceable, with or without proof of cost. Relying on the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Vijaya Bank v. Prashant B. Narnaware (2025), the Court noted that a minimum-service clause backed by liquidated damages isn’t against public policy, even when the employer doesn’t prove exactly how much it spent on training. What mattered here was that the employee had clearly moved up from “Technician” to “Engineer” status because of the training, regardless of who picked up the bill for it.
Resignation in breach of contract doesn’t have to be accepted. The Court pointed out that a relieving letter logically follows acceptance of resignation. Since the employee’s resignation violated the bond’s terms, the employer was within its rights to decline accepting it altogether, which meant there was nothing to “relieve” him from in the first place.
The employee wasn’t actually stuck. Notably, the employee never even asked for a relieving letter in his resignation email. The Court read this as a sign he likely already had another opportunity lined up or was confident of finding one without it. The employer hadn’t blocked him from taking up new work; it had only declined to actively assist him in doing so.
Courts shouldn’t reward strategic litigation. The Court was alert to the broader pattern this could set: trained employees breaking bonds and then using the threat of being unemployable to force employers into issuing favorable paperwork. Allowing that, the judgment suggests, would push employers toward poaching trained staff from competitors rather than investing in training their own.
What This Means in Practice
For employers, this case is a reminder that bonds with reasonable notice periods and liquidated damages clauses are generally enforceable, and an employee’s breach can justify withholding relieving documents, at least as an interim matter while a labour dispute is pending. For employees, the message is more cautionary: a bond signed in exchange for genuine training is not easily escaped, and exiting early without honoring its terms can leave you without the paperwork many employers expect from a new hire.
It’s worth noting that this was a ruling on an interim application. The underlying complaint is still pending before the Industrial Court, and the High Court was careful to call its findings prima facie, leaving the door open for the final outcome to differ once both sides present full evidence. The Court did, however, suggest a practical way forward: since the employee had completed roughly half of the bond period, he could offer a reasonable settlement amount to the employer to close the matter, rather than litigating the dispute to its end.
Disclaimer: This post is for general informational purposes and is not legal advice. If you’re dealing with a similar dispute, consult a lawyer who can review the specific terms of your bond and employment agreement.
