LPO Pangea3 absolved by CCI of unfair business practices for employee’s non-compete

The CCI has rejected allegations of unfair business practices against legal process outsourcing (LPO) company Pangea3 made by former Pangea3 employee Larry Lee Mccallister against it, reported the PTI.

Mccallister, who resigned on 12 July from the LPO that was bought by Thomson Reuters in 2010, had alleged that the non-compete clause in his employment contract was anti-competitive.

The clause barred him from accepting employment with a competitor for a year after his resignation.

Comments

Confused Zeus Says . . . 12 Nov 2013, 04:39
+4 -0
In retrospect, I think a non compete clause in an LPO contract is very progressive. It encourages a person to move out of the industry and there can be nothing better to an LPO professional's career growth.
anony 12 Nov 2013, 06:11
+1 -0
[quote name="Confused Zeus Says . . ."]In retrospect, I think a non compete clause in an LPO contract is very progressive. It encourages a person to move out of the industry and there can be nothing better to an LPO professional's career growth.[/quote]


if there are facts of the case then one can say that. but in absence of any fact and the kind of compensation etc that was offered to the employee in question, it would be difficult to say anything.

how is she suppose to earn anything for one year ? it appears to be in violation of section 23 of the indian contract act, unless facts are more clear, difficult to say why comp commission took one stand over the other
Researcher 12 Nov 2013, 17:52
+2 -0
Read the Gujarat Bottling case. You'll find the answer to your questions.
anony 13 Nov 2013, 09:21
+2 -0
[quote name="Researcher"]Read the Gujarat Bottling case. You'll find the answer to your questions.[/quote]

I am aware of the Gujarat Bottling case, thank you.

I admire your brilliance in deducing that the law as laid down in Gujarat Bottling case would be totally relevant to the facts of the present case, without even knowing the facts of the present case.

If you are however aware of the facts, then do share the same.
Delhi Lawyer 26 Mar 2014, 14:36
+1 -0
It would be Section 27 of Indian Contract Act 1872 and Art 19 (1) (g) Constitution.
Scooter 13 Nov 2013, 05:06
+1 -0
Are the firms willing to hire?
Dazed and Confused 13 Nov 2013, 02:20
+2 -0
The guy probably received poor legal advice in India or decided to go pro se at the CCI and give it a whirl. Approaching CCI for this sounds like advice from the non-practicing lawyers at Pangea3.

The non-compete would of course not stand up in court if properly addressed. Poor guy will go back with a bad impression of India, when he otherwise could have obtained relief.