A host of entities and firms carry non-compete clauses, also termed non-competition agreements, in their employment contracts, which restrict an employee from working in a competing business or starting a similar company that vies with and rivals the employer’s business. Such a restriction is usually applied for a specific time and within a specified area after an employee has left the company. The employer’s business interests are the major cause for such actions to be taken up and in order to ensure that trade secrets or other confidential information do not leak out to their competitors.
The article is a thorough guide to non-compete agreements, which looks into their legal bases, use cases, and the pros and cons of the contract for parties interested in it.
What does a Non-Compete Agreement mean?
A criterion in employment agreements, especially for senior executives, along with mergers and acquisitions transactions, non-compete agreements bind business founders and crucial executives, imposing certain restrictions on the business. In line with a non-compete clause, an individual may agree not to start a new business, or enter employment or work with any contending organisation. These restrictions are confined to a particular period or inside an identified geography. The underlying reason behind restraining senior executives from utilising such limitations is that their access to proprietary information and intellectual creations associated with the company can present an unfair business advantage to the competing entity in whose service they enter after leaving their job. Likewise, in deals involving mergers and acquisitions, the market value that an acquisition can fetch is undermined if the departing founders initiate or are hired into a competing entity, thereby creating a competitive disadvantage for the acquirer.
Legal Foundation and Enforceability of Non-Compete Agreements
In India, Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 dictates the clauses of the non-compete agreement. This section declares that any mutual deal that limits a person from carrying on a lawful engagement, enterprise, or commerce has a nullifying effect. By implication, the very nature of non-compete provisions negates them and declares them inoperative except in rare instances.
To be operative, a non-compete clause must fulfil the following conditions:
- Supported by Reasonableness and Fairness: The limitation must be fair and logical with respect to geographical confines, timespan, and the identity and type of business.
- Safeguarding Justifiable and Lawful Interests: The covenant must secure lawful business interests, like privileged and confidential information—trade secrets, or client relations and loyalty.
- Post-Employment or End of Service Restrictions: Courts are often hesitant to enforce non-compete clauses after the end of service, and book them under a trade limitation.
- Receiving Compensation: The employee must procure something of value in favour of signing the agreement, by way of a signing bonus or retention in employment.
- Severability Provision: An inclusion of a severability provision in your non-compete deal brings out the fact that if any notable part is stipulated to be devoid of legal implications, that does not mean that the remaining part of the agreement will also be inoperational and erroneous.
In India, non-compete clauses come under prohibition after an employee quits their work, as set out by Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. This act negates any covenant which tends to limit the privileges and rights of a person to carry out a lawful occupation or calling. However, clauses that operate in employment are deemed to be fair and legally sound to be implemented on the yardstick of fairness and directed towards conserving the business secrets and lawful assertions of the employer. Deviations from the post-employment non-application of limitations can be exercised in matters of agreement pertaining to the sale of a business’s brand equity, trust or franchise agreements.
Validity of Non-Compete Clauses
- Non-compete provisions can be valid during employment, subject to the test of reasonableness and shielding of the rightful business interest of the employer.
- Selling of a Business where the seller consents to the non-operation of the same enterprise within a prescribed geographical domain and timeframe.
- Securing confidential information using distinct non-disclosure and an agreement not to generate clauses, which stand differentiated from non-compete agreements.
Main Considerations
- Reasonableness in the context of the time period, scope, and geographical space for enforcement
- Valid Business Interests preserving confidential information or trade secrets
- Both parties to the agreement -the employer and the employee should understand thoroughly the terms of any defining clause or non-compete provisions before putting their signatures on it to avoid any conflagration or any imminent conflicts.
Elements of a Non-Compete Agreement
There can be a marked differentiation in a non-compete agreement from one firm to another due to its special drafting according to the requirements of the individual recruiter. On the whole, the regular elements of such contracts comprise:
1. Appropriate Timeframe
The time period of the restriction should be from six months to two years (or less). An employer can only formulate practical timelines and need not, in perpetuity, hinder an employee’s career growth. Long-term plans in non-compete contracts have a reduced probability of prevailing in Court suits.
2. Fair and Legitimate Scope of Impermissible Activities
The activities under canon must be expressly specified and straightforwardly tied to the functions and duties of the employee and the business of the employer. The employer must determine the specific job or work that the employee is prohibited from performing. Adding this piece of information allows for accuracy and a clear understanding when applying the specific clause; thus, it also assists workers in knowing what they may do and what is prohibited, which is to stop illegal actions.
3. Justified Geographical Location
The limitation has to be limited to a specific region that is relevant and makes sense from a geographical perspective to the business. The geography encompasses the local vicinity or space where the firm conducts its business transactions and where employees are prohibited from starting a company that competes either directly or indirectly with the firm.
4. Imposing Enforcement
The agreement should prescribe the way in which the enforcement can be implemented, whether by means of a legal proceeding.
5. Granting of Compensation
The non-compete negotiation should define the kind of allowance that should be granted to the employer in case the employee infringes the agreement.
6. Defining Competition
So much so that the non-compete covenant prohibits an employee from teaming up or engaging with specific competitors, a definition of the categories of businesses, commercial enterprises, or industries that vie with the employer’s needs must be mentioned.
Non-compete contracts are well-known in the Information Technology and media sectors across India. A television or news channel may raise valid concerns about the agreement. In many sectors, signing a non-compete agreement is a consideration, especially in fields like the corporate sector, finance, and manufacturing.
Conclusion
A non-compete agreement should be impartial and equitable for both parties, namely, the employer and the employee. Both expect particular details to be contractual and to have the force of law. For an employee, it is always productive to plan and know those non-compete restrictions, be equipped with details in respect of state-wise regulations, and have an understanding of the logic as to why the company holds a non-compete as critical. Thinking from a company’s perspective, the need for such agreements arises due to building new technologies and high investment in employee mentoring, since non-competes assist them in talent retention and use these investments to their advantage.
Related Services
