Are these employment terms legal for a Maharashtra based remote employee working for a US company ?

Dear Client,

Based on your legal issue. I offer you my opinion. The answer to your question is that you are a worker and are working in Maharashtra, and the laws applicable are those of the local Indian laws; even though the company is US-based, it is operating in India.

According to Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which clearly mentions that an employment bond cannot be enforced when the ordinary way of training is done and no extra expenses have been incurred by the employer. The Rs. 35,000 fine cannot be enforced and is unreasonable to pay when no kind of specialized training is done by the employer.

According to the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act, 2017, the maximum number of permissible working hours is 9 hours per day and 48 hours per week, and you have worked 6 days in a week with 9 hours per day, so you have worked extra time already and should get overtime wages. As an employee, you can get casual leave, paid leave, and medical leave.

Further, you are entitled to get your wages on the 7th or 10th of every month, and the employer cannot withhold your wages.

You have the right not to pay the fine as a penalty, as it is not applicable in your case, and you are entitled to all the pending salaries. If the salary is withheld or the penalty is forced upon you, you can file a complaint with the Maharashtra District Labour Commissioner for wages being held for a long period as well as implementing an unenforceable penalty.

Hope this answer helps you!

For further legal assistance, contact us

OLQ LAW FIRM

Dear Client,

As there isn’t a formal housing society, the issue here is whether the building has any legal backing at all. You need to check if there’s a Declaration registered under the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act. If there isn't, no one has the legal right to force you to pay for beautification.

Even if the building is legally registered, the costs are supposed to be divided up based on the square footage of your flat. They can't just split the bill evenly among everyone. Charging you the exact same amount for a 942 sq ft place as someone staying in a 2500+ sq ft place is legally questionable.

However, keep in mind there's a big difference between essential maintenance - which everyone usually has pay a reasonable amount for and purely cosmetic beautification. They can only force you to pay for cosmetic changes if a formal body holds a real vote on it, and even then, it still has to be billed proportionally by square footage, never a flat rate.

It would be suggested to send them an email asking directly if a registered Declaration exists, and ask for the exact math they used for both the new charges and the old ones. If they won't charge you based on your actual square footage, raise it as an issue. And if the building has no formal legal structure, then ensure to put it in writing that you aren't paying.

I hope this answer helps, if you have any other query kindly do not hesitate to contact us. Thank-you.

Dear Client,

The applicability of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act of 2017 is far from settled, since it concerns "establishments" physically situated in the state, while an American company without an Indian branch is in a grey area. Nevertheless, you are not left unprotected, since the Indian Contract Act of 1872 determines the validity of the contract regardless of any foreign choice of law clauses, and public policy will certainly rule out unconscionable conditions.

In case the S&E Act is applicable, the six-day workweek without any leave as well as the delayed wage rotation violate its provisions, generally paralleled by those in the Payment of Wages Act of 1936. In case it is not applicable, the entitlement depends on the contract alone.

Though the 18 months lock-in period, 6 weeks’ notice and ₹35,000 fine are vulnerable, but they are not automatically void. As per the provisions of Sections 73 and 74 of the Contract Act, the training bond should take into account real cost and not the form of a fine. In view of the fact that the training you were provided was mostly unsupervised, the amount of ₹35,000 would be difficult to justify. Moreover, the maximum claim for compensation can be made for any real cost incurred by the employer.

The screenshot monitoring is covered by the DPDP Act 2023, which has been enacted but has been put in operation partially and hence does not help you now. But the "make-up" of idle time without pay poses the immediate threat to you.

We recommend documenting all communications, and seeking a considered opinion on the establishment question before approaching labour authorities.

I hope this answer helps. If you have any further query kindly do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you.