Question

"Business Law"

Dr. A quits her job at ABC University because she got a better job at XYZ University. Can ABC University get an injunction prohibiting her from teaching at XYZ University?

Answer 1

ABC University can not get an injunction prohibiting her from teaching at XYZ University , because I added rule and example with the help of past incident :

In matters of work, both the employee and the boss have such rights so they should never be exploited to anybody's disadvantage. When clearly enumerated in compliance with current laws, the individual can not be compelled to stay obedient to the boss. In matters of work, both the employee and the boss have such rights so they should never be exploited to anybody's disadvantage. When clearly enumerated in compliance with current laws, the individual can not be compelled to stay obedient to the boss.

Independence to start your own company or move employment to boost your career is crucial and an essential privilege of an employee that can not be limited or curtailed. This significant judgement came in an injunctive order from the Delhi High Court on 24 May 2006 in the case of American Express Bank Ltd. vs. Ms Priya Puri, 2006 LLR 682 (Del. HC). The discriminatory contractual clause of the service and job agreements can not be used by an person. Any restriction should be placed on any person who has quit the job or is fired as it went against the whole grains of section 27 of the 1872 Contract Act. These arrangements are unenforceable, null and contradictory to public policy. In addition, court can not require what is forbidden by law. .. American Express Bank Ltd. tried to prohibit one of its former workers from the usage or release of certain trade secrets, to attract or compel its clients and to violate the secrecy of its terms and conditions. In brief, the conspectus of both the case was that the bank's Northern India Wealth Management was led by an executive, Ms Priya Puri. Her employment was dismissed on the basis that she revealed sensitive details and trade secrets to competitor for her own gain during the period of her job and thereby breached the bank's consumer privacy policy. The bank's argument was that as the head of wealth services, she had access to extremely classified details in the unusual role. The employee's services were terminated on the basis of faith loss