<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said private employers can include a clause in appointment letters specifying that any employment-related disputes must be resolved in a particular court or jurisdiction.</p>.<p>A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan said a contract was a legally binding agreement, regardless of the parties involved or their strengths.</p>.<p>"The right to legal adjudication cannot be taken away from any party through contract but can be relegated to a set of courts for the ease of the parties," it said.</p>.ED action on state-run liquor retailer: Tamil Nadu, TASMAC withdraw transfer pleas in Supreme Court.<p>In the dispute at hand, the court observed, the clause did not take away the right of the employee to pursue a legal claim but only restricted them to pursue the claims before the courts in Mumbai alone.</p>.<p>The apex court was hearing appeals filed by two employees of HDFC Bank appointed in Patna and Lord Krishna Bank in Delhi, respectively.</p>.<p>The banks in both cases had mentioned in their appointment letters that any dispute between the parties leading to legal action must be resolved before a competent court in Mumbai.</p>.<p>When the services of both employees were terminated due to allegations of fraud and misconduct, they challenged their terminations before respective courts in Patna and Delhi.</p>.<p>The high courts in these places held that the employees could challenge their terminations before the court where they were posted prior to severance of service.</p>.<p>The top court, however, pointed out there was a gulf of difference between a public service and a service contract with a private employer.</p>.<p>"The origin of government service is contractual. There is an offer and acceptance in every case. But once appointed to his post or office, the government servant acquires a status and his rights and obligations are no longer determined by the consent of both the parties, but by the statute or statutory rules as framed." The legal position of a government servant is more one of status than that of contract, the bench further explained.</p>.<p>"A government servant may not be tied down by his employer to a court at a particular place, should a dispute arise for adjudication by a law court. Articles 14, 16 and 21 could stand in the way," it added.</p>.<p>On the other hand, the bench said, service in the private sector was governed by the terms of the employment contract entered into by and between the parties inter-se. </p>
<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said private employers can include a clause in appointment letters specifying that any employment-related disputes must be resolved in a particular court or jurisdiction.</p>.<p>A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan said a contract was a legally binding agreement, regardless of the parties involved or their strengths.</p>.<p>"The right to legal adjudication cannot be taken away from any party through contract but can be relegated to a set of courts for the ease of the parties," it said.</p>.ED action on state-run liquor retailer: Tamil Nadu, TASMAC withdraw transfer pleas in Supreme Court.<p>In the dispute at hand, the court observed, the clause did not take away the right of the employee to pursue a legal claim but only restricted them to pursue the claims before the courts in Mumbai alone.</p>.<p>The apex court was hearing appeals filed by two employees of HDFC Bank appointed in Patna and Lord Krishna Bank in Delhi, respectively.</p>.<p>The banks in both cases had mentioned in their appointment letters that any dispute between the parties leading to legal action must be resolved before a competent court in Mumbai.</p>.<p>When the services of both employees were terminated due to allegations of fraud and misconduct, they challenged their terminations before respective courts in Patna and Delhi.</p>.<p>The high courts in these places held that the employees could challenge their terminations before the court where they were posted prior to severance of service.</p>.<p>The top court, however, pointed out there was a gulf of difference between a public service and a service contract with a private employer.</p>.<p>"The origin of government service is contractual. There is an offer and acceptance in every case. But once appointed to his post or office, the government servant acquires a status and his rights and obligations are no longer determined by the consent of both the parties, but by the statute or statutory rules as framed." The legal position of a government servant is more one of status than that of contract, the bench further explained.</p>.<p>"A government servant may not be tied down by his employer to a court at a particular place, should a dispute arise for adjudication by a law court. Articles 14, 16 and 21 could stand in the way," it added.</p>.<p>On the other hand, the bench said, service in the private sector was governed by the terms of the employment contract entered into by and between the parties inter-se. </p>