The Court has ruled that exclusive jurisdiction clauses in employment contracts must be respected, marking a significant change for employers across India.
Why it matters: This decision helps companies avoid the burden of defending lawsuits in multiple locations, offering clarity and relief. With 28 states in India, the ability for employees to bring cases forward in local courts created a significant burden for employers with pan-India operations.
Employers, especially those with offices nationwide, can now enforce dispute resolution terms that specify a single court.
The ruling treats employment contracts equally with other contracts, emphasizing the sanctity of agreed terms.
The case: The judgment came from two appeals involving two HDFC Bank employees.
Both were terminated for misconduct and filed lawsuits in local courts (one in Patna and one in Delhi) despite clauses stating disputes should be resolved in Mumbai. The local courts came to different conclusions on how the cases should be treated.
The Supreme Court overturned differing lower court rulings, reinforcing the validity of jurisdiction clauses.
Employees often seek a local court which is more favourable to the employee, particularly those involving large or multinational employers. The Court highlighted that unequal bargaining power exists in many contracts, not just employment. In the event that multiple courts have jurisdiction, parties can limit disputes to one court.
Impact on employers
Consult with your legal counsel to determine whether a single jurisdiction is appropriate for your organisation.
Companies should consider dispute resolution clauses in their employment contracts which streamline legal processes - reducing costs and logistical challenges.

Michelle Swinden
Executive Director, Asia-Pacific, HR Policy Global
Contact Michelle Swinden LinkedIn