Introduction
In a significant judgment affirming employee autonomy and contractual principles, the Delhi High Court has ruled that an employee cannot be compelled to rejoin an organization or remain without assignment against their will. The judgment came in response to a dispute between a former employee and a private company, where the employee was allegedly denied full settlement despite their resignation being accepted and relieving letter issued.
Background
The matter involved a senior executive who had served a multinational company and subsequently resigned. After acceptance of the resignation and completion of the notice period, the company insisted on the employee’s rejoining on grounds of pending internal approvals and later allegedly refused to process certain employment dues. The employee sought judicial intervention for relief and enforcement of rights under the employment contract.
The Single Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh of the Delhi High Court considered whether a company could compel an employee to return to work or withhold payments due to internal procedural delays.
Key Points
Voluntariness of Employment Relationship:
The Court emphasized that the principle of personal autonomy is intrinsic to employment. “No employee can be forced to serve against his will. Employment is a matter of mutual consent,” the Court held.
Company Cannot Stall Settlements on Internal Grounds:
It was held that administrative lapses or pending formalities within the employer’s setup cannot override an employee’s right to exit a company after proper resignation. The Court noted that forcing an employee to wait without an assigned role violates the dignity of labour.
Resignation Accepted, Employment Ended:
Once the resignation was accepted and the notice period served, the employment relationship stood terminated. Any attempt to compel the employee’s return or delay final settlement was viewed as coercive and contrary to basic principles of contract law.
Doctrine of Specific Performance Not Applicable in Employment:
Justice Singh reaffirmed the established legal doctrine that specific performance — a remedy generally used in civil contract disputes — does not apply to employment contracts in private sector jobs. Thus, neither rejoining nor continuing without work can be enforced judicially.
Recent Developments
The judgment was delivered in June 2025 and is expected to have wider implications in employment law, especially in private employment disputes involving resignation settlements and rejoining pressures. The Court’s strong affirmation of freedom of contract may be invoked in future to curb exploitative practices in workforce management.
Conclusion
This Delhi High Court decision sends a clear message: work cannot be maintained through coercion, and procedural failures cannot be allowed to prevent a former employee from a dignified exit. It upholds contractual equilibrium in private employment and recognizes the right of the employee to leave an employer without fear of retaliation or undue withholding of wages. It is likely to influence employer practices and litigation trends concerning resignation and settlement in the corporate sector.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY HARINI S
