Post-employment restraint unenforceable where "leave the company" meant voluntary resignation, not employer termination.

The SC held that a post-service restrictive covenant triggered only when an employee "leave[s] the company" could not be enforced after the employer terminated the employee's service. Construing the phrase in its ordinary and contextual sense, the Court found it referred to a voluntary departure by the employee, not dismissal or termination by the employer. Because the contractual restraint never arose on its terms, the employer could not rely on it against the respondent. The Court therefore found it unnecessary to decide whether the clause was void under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

---

---

Issues: Whether the post-service restrictive covenant in Clause 10 was enforceable against an employee whose services were terminated by the employer, and whether the expression "after you leave the company" covered termination of service by the employer.

Analysis: The covenant was framed to operate only after the employee "leave[s] the company". The Court construed that expression in its ordinary and contextual sense as referring to a voluntary departure by the employee, not to termination or dismissal by the employer. As the respondent's services had been terminated by the appellant, the contractual restraint did not arise on its terms and could not be enforced. The Court therefore found it unnecessary to decide the broader question whether the covenant was void under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The separate opinion also treated post-employment restraints with caution and applied a restrictive construction to the clause, but the final result remained the same.

Conclusion: The restrictive covenant was not enforceable against the respondent because the phrase "after you leave the company" did not include termination of service by the employer; the appeal failed.

---