In a significant decision that safeguards workers’ rights against unfair employer tactics, the Punjab and Haryana High Court Thursday ruled that agreements requiring employees to relinquish their legal benefits are invalid from the outset.Justice Harpreet Singh Brar cancelled an order that denied a municipal worker credit for his past years of service, and it criticised the widespread habit of pressuring reinstated workers to abandon claims for back pay, ongoing service recognition, and retirement benefits under threat of losing their jobs.The case involves Ranjit Singh, a tubewell operator hired by the Municipal Council in Khanna on September 14, 1992. His job was made permanent on December 29, 1994, after he worked the required 240 days by October 31, 1993, following government guidelines. But on March 29, 1994, his employment was suddenly ended without any warning notice or chance to explain himself.Upset by this, Singh took the matter to the Industrial Tribunal in Ludhiana. On July 28, 2011, the tribunal ruled in his favour, ordering the council to rehire him with “continuity of service”.Instead of following the ruling fully, the council passed a decision requiring Singh to sign a sworn statement promising not to claim any back pay. Facing money troubles after 11 years without a job, Singh signed it to get his position back. The council then gave him a new hiring letter on June 21, 2012, treating him as a brand-new employee rather than counting his earlier time on the job. This meant he lost out on benefits like pay raises and pension calculations based on his full work history.As he neared retirement, Singh asked the Director of Local Self Government to include his service from July 23, 1992, to June 25, 2012, for these benefits. But his request was turned down on March 3, 2025, and Singh challenged the decision in the high court.In his September 25 ruling, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar focused on one main question: “Whether an employee can be denied substantial service rights on the basis of an undertaking given by him/her on the dictate of the employer?” The court said no, pointing out the unfair power difference and breaches of the Constitution.Story continues below this adUsing parts of the Indian Contract Act from 1872 (Sections 16, 19A, and 23), the court explained that agreements made under pressure or against public interest are not enforceable or can be cancelled. Justice Brar noted, “Unfortunately, the practice of extracting undertakings from employees who have been reinstated after tedious litigation is rather common. These undertakings are exploitative as they often pertain to foregoing past service benefits, including arrears of salary, increments, continuity of service and retiral benefits and are obtained by placing the employees under duress.”“Often the reinstated employees are issued fresh appointment letters, as is the case in the matter at hand, to deny them any benefits of their past service, which directly impacts their regularization, seniority and pensionary benefits. Considering that livelihoods are at stake, the employees often remain silent in the face of these exploitative practices. This Court cannot allow an employer to take advantage of their employees’ financial circumstances to bend them to their will…Such exploitative undertakings are void ab initio since no employee can be forced to contract out of his statutory rights.”Quoting the Supreme Court’s 1978 decision in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, the judgment recalls that Article 21 guarantees no one can lose their life or freedom without a fair and reasonable process.Rejecting the council’s claim that Singh’s agreement bound him, the judge called their actions “unbecoming of a public employer” and against Articles 14 and 16 (which ensures equal opportunity in public jobs). The March 3, 2025, order was cancelled, and the council was told to count Singh’s past service for permanent status and pension within three months.