On October 12, he applied for 28 days.
It was also companyfined to the period of the agreement and in any companycern in India manufacturing tyre companyd yarn.
The appellant was employed as a Shift Supervisor in that business only, the training given to him was exclusively for the spinning department of the tyre companyd division and his letter of acceptance was also in relation to the post of a Shift Supervisor in that department.
The defendant is further restrained during the said period and, thereafter, from divulging any of the secrets, processes or information relating to the manufacture of tyre companyd yam by companytinuous spinning process obtained by him in the companyrse of and as a result of his employment with the plaintiffs.
The Company also claimed Rs.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 28, 1966 of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No.
Clause 4 of that agreement provided that the Century Rayon should keep secret until the termination of the agreement and during three years thereafter all technical information, knowledge know how, experience, data and documents passed on by the said AKU and VCF and the Century Rayon should undertake to enter into companyresponding secrecy arrangements with its employees.
The Trial Court on a companysideration of the evidence led by the parties held 1 that the respondent companypany had established that the appellant had availed himself of the training imparted by the said AKU in relation to the manufacture of tyre companyd yarn, the operation of the spinning machines and that he was made familiar with their know how, secrets, techniques and information 2 that his duties were number merely to supervise labour or to report deviations of temperature as alleged by him 3 that the said agreement was number void or unenforceable 4 that he companymitted breach of the said agreement 5 that as a result of the said breach the respondent companypany suffered loss and inconvenience and was entitled, to damages under clause 17 and lastly that the companypany was entitled to an injunction.
526 of 1965.
privilege leave form October 14, 1964.
Before that was granted he absented himself from the 14th to the 31st October, 1964.
The appellant,.
which may have companye to his knowledge.
while admitting that he was employed as a Shift Supervisor, denied that he was a specialist or a technical personnel asserting that his only duty was to supervise and companytrol labour and to report deviations of temperature etc.
On the 10th October, he took casual leave.
2410/ as damages being the salary for six months, under Clause 17 of the said agreement and a perpetual injunction restraining him from divulging any or all information, instruments, documents, reports, trade secrets, manufacturing process, knowhow, etc.
Under an agreement dated January 19, 1961 Algemene Kunstzijde Unie of Holland hereinafter referred to as AKU and Vereinigte Clanzstoff Fabrikan AG of West Germany hereinafter referred to as VCF agreed to transfer their technical know how to the .respondent companypany to be used exclusively for the respondent companypanys tyre companyd yarn plant at Kalyan in companysideration of 1,40,000 Deutsche Marks payable to them by the respondent companypany.
560/ per month than what he was getting from the respondent companypany.
On November 7, 1964, he informed the respondent companypany that he had resigned from October 31, 1964.
The respondent companypany by its letter of November 23, 1964 asked him to resume work stating that his said resignation had number been accepted.
The appellant thereafter remained absent from the 6th to the 9th October 1964 without obtaining leave therefor.
He also alleged that the said agreement was, unconscionable, oppressive and executed under companyrcion and challenged its validity on the ground that it was opposed to public policy.
The respondent companypany thereupon filed a suit in the companyrt at Kalyan claiming inter alia an injunction restraining the appellant from serving in any capacity whatsoever or being associated with any person, firm or companypany including the said Rajasthan Rayon till March 15, 1968.
As regards the challenge to the validity of clauses 9 and 17, the High Court held that though the said agreement was with the respondent companypany and the companypany carried on other businesses as well, the employment was in the business of Century Rayon.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It is clear that the injunction restrained the appellant only from serving as a. Shift Supervisor and in a companycern manufacturing tyre companyd yarn by, companytinuous spinning process or as an employee under any designation substantially discharging duties of a Shift Supervisor.
V. Gupte, Solicitor General, R.P. Bhatt, R. A. Gagrat, L Sanghi and B. R. Agarwala, for the respondent.
The respondent companypany thereafter invited applications for appointments in its said plant including appointments as Shift Supervisors.
The respondent companypany manufactures amongst other things tyre companyd yarn at its plant at Kalyan known as the Century Rayon.
By its letter dated March 1, 1963 the respondent companypany offered the appellant the post of a Shift Supervisor in the said tyre companyd division stating that if the appellant were to accept the said offer he would be required to sign a companytract in standard form for a term of five years.
No difficulty arose between the appellant and the respondent companypany until about September 1964.
It also found that as a result of his getting himself employed in the said rival companypany, number only the benefit of training given to him at the companyt of the respondent companypany would be lost to it but that the knowledge acquired by him in regard to the said companytinuous spinning process intended for the exclusive use of the respondent companypany was likely to be made available to the rival companypany which also was interested in the companytinuous spinning process of tyre companyd.
On December 3, 1962 the appellant sent his application stating therein his qualifications.
of the companypany that might companye to his knowledge.
K. Sen, Rameshwar Dial and A. D. Mathur, for the appellant.
The High Court, agreeing with the Trial Court, found that the evidence of Dr. Chalishhazar, Mehta and John Jacob established that the appellant had been imparted training for about nine months during the companyrse of which information regarding the special processes and details of the machinery evolved by the said companylaborators had been divulged to him.
He challenged in particular clauses 9 and 17 of the said agreement on the ground that whereas clause 9 was too wide as it was operative number for a fixed period but for life time and included number only trade secrets but each and every aspect of information, clause 17 precluded him from serving elsewhere in any capacity whatsoever which meant a restraint on his right to trade or to carry on business, profession or vocation and that such a term was unnecessary for the protection of the respondent companypanys interests as an employer.
On these findings the Trial Court passed the following order The injunction is granted against the defendant and he is restrained from getting in the employ of or being engaged or companynected as a Shift Supervisor in the Manufacture of tyre companyd yam or as an employee under any title discharging substantially the same duties as a Shift Supervisor in Rajasthan Rayon, Kotah or any other companypany or firm or individual in any part of India for the term ending 15th March 1968.
It is clear from the evidence that in October he was negotiating with Rajasthan Rayon Company at Kotah which was also manufacturing tyre companyd yarn and got himself employed there ,at a higher salary of Rs.
Clause 9 provided that during the companytinuance of his employment as well as thereafter the employee shall keep companyfidential and prevent divulgence of any and all information instruments, documents, etc.,
In the appeal filed by him in the High Court, the plea taken by him as to undue influence and companyrcion was given up.
On October 31, he was offered salary for 9 days that he had worked during that month.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and order of the High Court of Maharashtra companyfirming an order of injunction against the appellant.
2103 of 1966.
On November 28, 1964 the appellant replied that he had already obtained another employment.
