TATA SONS LIMITED Vs. MASTECH CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN A. No. 5675 of 1994, the petitioner has stated as follows: The suit is filed against the respondents for restraining them by means of a permanent injunction from inducing the employees of the plaintiff engaged with the plaintiff's office of Madras to abandon the service of the plaintiff in disregard of the subsisting contract of employment. The plaintiff recruits candidates with suitable background and gives extensive training at the plaintiff's costs to develop them as software Engineers and equip them with problem solving techniques. After such training they are taken into regular service. Several crores of rupees were spent per annum by the plaintiff on training. The trainees receive salary during the period of training. A trainee has to serve to plaintiff for a period of three years from the date of joining and should undertake that he will not take up employment with anyone else during that period. An agreement is entered into between the employee and the plaintiff for that purpose. The plaintiff also deputes employees abroad for training on the job study. The plaintiff spends huge amounts towards travel cots, allowances paid abroad besides the salary and emoluments paid in INdia . The persons deputed abroad should execute an agreement undertaking to serve the plaintiff on return to INdia for twice the period of deputation abroad. This period will not exceed twenty-four months during the career of the employee. The first defendant is in the field of Computer/consultancy in the United States . The second defendant is involved in recruiting personnel for the projects abroad of the first defendant. Since they do not have any office at Madras , they have engaged the third defendant to recruit the personnel for them. The defendants who are in need of highly trained and experienced personnel are keen and inducing the employees of the plaintiff to bread their contractual relations. They are aware of the agreement between the plaintiff and their employees. They are also aware of the undertaking given by the employees not to take employment with anyone during the period of deputation. But, intentionally and without lawful justification, they have induced the employees of the plaintiff to commit breach of the service of the agreement. Hence the suit. Since the defendants 1 and 2 are carrying on business outside the jurisdiction of this Court, leave to sue is sought for.

(2.) WHEN this application was moved on the date of the filing of the suit, leave was granted.

(3.) THE plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from inducing the employees of the plaintiff engaged at Madras to abandon the services of the plaintiff in disregard of the subsisting contract of employment between them and the plaintiff. In the plaint, it is alleged that the first defendant is having its office in Pittsburg, pennsylvania and the second defendant is having its office at Pune and through the third defendant, who is having his office at Madras, they are inducing the employees of the plaintiff for whom the plaintiff has given training at heavy cost, to leave the service of the plaintiff and engage them and if the defendants are allowed to induce the employees of the plaintiff in violation of their service agreement, considerable damage and prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff. Leave has been sought for to file the suit at Madras on the ground that the defendants 1 and 2 are carrying on their business outside the jurisdiction of this Court. It was also granted.