Partners For Life: The Story of Wipro Biomed and Beckman Coulter

Non-Solicitation Clause
Both parties agree that for a period of two (2) years from the date of termination of the agreement to which this appendix is attached, including termination by either party with or without cause, either directly or indirectly solicit, induce or encourage any employee(s) to terminate their employment with or to accept employment with any competitor, supplier or customer of the other party, nor shall either party cooperate with any other in doing or attempting to do so. As used herein, the term solicit, induce or encourage includes, but is not limited to (a) initiating communications with an employee relating to possible employment, and/or (b) offering bonuses or additional compensation to encourage employees to terminate their employment with and accept employment with a competitor, supplier or customer of the soliciting party, or (c) referring employees to personnel or agents employed by competitors, suppliers or customers of the soliciting party. General advertising of positions and other general means of recruitment shall not be considered solicitation; and neither party shall be restricted from responding to unsolicited applicants who are employees of the other party.

Beckman Coulters Recruitment Advertisement

For all Sales and Marketing and Service and Support positions experience of working with or having handled Beckman Coulter products and or similar products would be a distinct advantage.

Delhi High Courts Interpretation

It is abundantly clear that Beckman Coulter has made it known to the public at large that for all sales and marketing and service and supports positions the experience of working with or having handled Beckman Coulter products and or similar products would be a distinct advantage. It is an admitted position that Wipro Biomed was the only concern which had handled Beckman Coulter products for the past 17 years in India. This is so because Wipro Biomed was admittedly the exclusive Canvassing Representative of the respondent in India. Therefore, Beckman Coulter was making it known to the employees of the petitioner that in case they applied for the positions advertised in the Sales and Marketing and Service and Support Departments, they, having handled Beckman Coulter products, would be at a distinct advantage.

Delhi High Courts Interpretation

The indication that such persons would be at a distinct advantage is an indication that Beckman Coulter would be interested in employing such individuals. Therefore, there is no manner of doubt in my mind that this advertisement was directed towards the employees of Wipro Biomed and it was definitely a solicitation on behalf of Beckman Coulter.

Beckman Coulters Argument

There is a fundamental difference between solicitation and employment. To restrain solicitation is very different from restraining employment.

Wipro Biomed wants a restraint on employment in the garb of a restraint on solicitation. Beckman(s lawyer) also cited various English cases and argued using the test of reasonableness (Standard of Reasonableness).

Delhi High Courts Reply

Under Section 27 of the Contract Act, a service covenant extended beyond the termination of the service is void.

Not a single Indian decision has been brought to our notice where an injunction has been granted against an employee after the termination of his employment.
We, therefore, feel that no useful purpose will be served in discussing the several English decisions cited at the Bar. It was not permissible to import the principles of the English Law dehors the statutory provision unless the statute was such that it could not be understood without the aid of the English Law. Neither the test of reasonableness not the principle that the restraint being partial or reasonable are applicable to a case governed by Section 27 of the Contract Act, unless it falls within Exception I.

The Indian Contract Act, 1872

Agreement in restraint of trade void.- Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void. Saving of agreement not to carry on business of which goodwill is sold. Exception 1: One who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying on a similar business, within specified local limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business.

Delhi High Courts View on Non-Compete

This Court is of prima facie view that the Agreement between the parties prohibiting the defendant for two years from taking employment with any present, past or prospective customer of Wipro Biomed is void and hit by Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act. This stipulation was prima facie against public policy of India and an arm-twisting tactic adopted by an employer against a young man who was looking for a job.

The supreme protection

The contracts between the vendor and purchaser of business are generally marked by equality of strength and bargaining power. In the contracts between Master and servant, this may not be so. Courts take a far stricter view of the covenants between master and servants than it does of similar covenants between vendor and purchaser or in partnership agreements. An employer, for instance, is not entitled to protect himself against competition on the part of an employee after the employment has ceased but a purchaser of a business is entitled to protect himself against competition per se on the part of the vendor.

So, What Happened?

As regards the solicitation already made by Beckman Coulter in the advertisement, if Wipro Biomed is able to substantiate this in the arbitration proceedings, would be entitled to be compensated by the grant of damages. So, it is not as if a breach of the non-solicitation clause would leave Wipro Biomed without a remedy. The remedy lies in the claim for damages and an injunction against solicitation in future. It does not lie in the grant of an injunction preventing its employees from resigning and taking up employment with Beckman Coulter. Accordingly, this application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is disposed of with the following directions:-

Left Hanging
Beckman Coulter is restrained during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings from taking out any other or further advertisements or to do anything to solicit, induce or encourage the employees of the petitioner to leave Wipro Biomeds employment and take up employment of the respondent and / or its agents and / or representatives and / or competitors. The employees of Wipro Biomed would, however, be free to take up employment with Beckman Coulter, even in response to the said advertisement which has prima facie been held to be solicitation, but, Beckman Coulter would be liable to compensate Wipro Biomed for such breach of the non-solicitation clause, if so established in the pending arbitration proceedings.

Origin, Adaptation and Change

The said provision (i.e., Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act) was lifted from Hon. David D. Field's Draft Code for New York which was based upon the old English doctrine of restraint of trade, as prevailing in ancient times. The Supreme Court observed that the adoption of this provision had been severely criticised by Sir Frederick Pollock who has observed that the law of India is tied down by the language of the section to the principle, now exploded in England, of a hard and fast rule qualified by strictly limited exceptions. Thirteenth Report of the Law Commission recommended that the provision should be suitably amended to allow such restrictions and all contracts in restraint of trade, general or partial, as were reasonable, in the interest of the parties as well as of the public. No action has, however, been taken by Parliament on the said recommendation. (Can you guess when was it recommended?) The Delhi High court also observed that liberalisation and globalisation is likely to bring in numerous shades of such restrictions.

Are you right?

Thirteenth Report of Law Commission of India was submitted on 26th September, 1958 by A.K. Sen, Chairman of Law Commission, and the Law Minister of India then. Can you find out as what happened to Wipro Biomed afterwards?