INTRODUCTION
The shift to remote work-from-home arrangements has reshaped the employment landscape in India, particularly in dealing with employment disputes. While the traditional employment model presented clarity on 'place of work', the shift to the hybrid model allows employees to work out of places outside the 'place of work', thereby blurring the jurisdictional lines. The Supreme Court's decision in Rakesh Kumar Verma vs. HDFC Bank Ltd.1 directly addresses this issue by affirming the enforceability of exclusive jurisdiction clauses in private employment contracts.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The Supreme Court case involved two former HDFC Bank employees, one in Patna and the other in Delhi. The employees initiated legal actions challenging their terminations in local courts (in Patna and Delhi, respectively). The proceedings were initiated in the local court despite their employment agreements explicitly conferring exclusive jurisdiction upon the courts in Mumbai, the Bank's headquarters. The employees approached the local courts on the basis of arguments concerning the significant power disparity between the employer and employee, and its potential influence on the legal outcomes. Subsequently, HDFC Bank sought either the dismissal of these suits or their transfer to the Mumbai court, as originally provided for in the employment agreements. While the Patna High Court affirmed the contractual selection of forum within the employment agreement, the Delhi High Court ruled in favour of the employee's chosen jurisdiction, citing their residence and place of work. The parties approached the Supreme Court on an appeal.
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED
Employees' Position:
The employees' counsel argued that employment contracts are inherently unequal due to the power difference between employers and employees. They claimed that enforcing exclusive jurisdiction clauses can limit employees' access to justice, especially when the chosen legal venue is distant from where the employees live and work.
Employer's Position:
The counsel for the bank argued that the employment contracts, including the exclusive jurisdiction clause, were valid, enforceable, and agreed upon by both parties. They stated that when two courts have jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the parties can choose one as the exclusive forum. The bank also highlighted that key decisions, such as hiring, employment terms, and termination, were all made in Mumbai, thus making it a reasonable and legally fitting place for resolving disputes.
SUPREME COURT'S ANALYSIS
Considering the contentions of the parties, the Supreme Court reinforced the validity of exclusive jurisdiction clauses in employment contracts and provided the following justifications:
- Relegation, Not Restriction: The law does not allow the parties to absolutely restrict each other from approaching a forum but allows them to relegate jurisdiction to a particular court.
- Jurisdictional Nexus: If the court to which jurisdiction is relegated has the jurisdiction to entertain such a legal claim, then such exclusive clauses are valid. In this instance, the court explained that the decision to engage the employees, the dispatching of the appointment letters to the employees, and the decision to terminate the appointment letters of the employees were all made in Mumbai. Hence, the court in Mumbai had the jurisdiction to entertain the legal claims arising out of the appointment letter.
- Explicit Language Matters: The clause in the appointment letter expressly barred the jurisdiction of other courts by using the word "exclusive".
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court held that the courts in Patna and Delhi did not have jurisdiction, and only the courts in Mumbai, as agreed upon in the employment contracts, were competent to hear the case.
KEY TAKEAWAYS FOR EMPLOYERS
This judgment holds critical value for companies operating in decentralized or work-from-home setups. It empowers employers to centralize litigation risk and prevent forum shopping by employees filing suits in locations disconnected from the contractual situation. In light of the same, employers can consider the following:
- Clear and specific clauses: Drafting clear and specific jurisdiction clauses in employment contracts allows for less leeway for challenge.
- Forum and Jurisdictional Nexus: Ensure the chosen forum has a jurisdictional nexus – this is generally the principal place of business, i.e., the place where the registered office is located.
- Maintaining consistency: The jurisdiction provided for in employment agreements should be uniform across all employees and should also be reflected in the human resource policies.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court's ruling is an important confirmation of party freedom and clear contracts in employment law. In today's environment of remote work and teams spread across different locations, the decision lets employers minimize jurisdictional confusion by adding exclusive forum clauses. This decision gives employers a clear plan for setting up dispute resolution methods that are both effective and sensible.
Footnote
1. Rakesh Kumar Verma vs HDFC Bank Limited, Civil Appeal No. 2282/2025.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
