Employment Bond

At the time of joining the company an employee is zealous to serve the company and in the hope of long term relationship and gaining seniority with promotions in pay and rank, certain events change the working and the mind of the employee and this is but natural.

While joining, the employee undertakes to serve the company for a fixed period and in breach agrees to pay a certain amount. This amount is covered under a bond and on resignation the company demands such amount.
But most employees are unaware of the legal implications in the event they leave the job without relieving letter and what action the company may take against them in such a situation.

As for the impact on career is concerned, there are certain employers who understand the plight of the employees and they consider their employment even without asking for relieve from neither the former company nor the experience letter, there are other such companies who purely follow such rules as demanding relieving and experience certificates.
Employer's perspective

I don’t think the practice is wrong, as when the company is putting so much investment/effort/time into training and developing an individual, and if the individual instead of being fruitful to the company uses the training imparted to him for his own professional growth; then it's but natural and within the purview of professionalism to have him stay put to the company's cause for a certain period of time.
It's that much more important to bind an employee when commitment, integrity and honesty are on the doldrums and people only want to take advantage of their increasing demand in the market place.
Employee Perspective: As there are no other best options available, go with the company's bond.
But there are some employers who just want to hold employees as if the employee has been bought for some worth and make them work day and night (as he cannot leave the company in bond period). They want to save some money on employees by paying less salary in this bond period.

Some of the typical clauses in a common employment bond are:
1. If you leave job, you will have to give a 1/2/3 months notice.
2. You cannot join a company that is into a similar line of business. (Non-Compete clause).
3. You will have to pay to the company a particular sum if you are leaving the organization.

I feel if company environment, remuneration and growth is good then there is no need for any bond as no employee would prefer leaving such company as long as some other reasons don’t operate.
Let us understand that people work by choice; if you love someone don't sign a bond with him and there would be reasonable probability that he stays with you.
And the moment you sign a bond with him, the love is lost from the relationship, and even the probability of him staying with you would tend to ZERO.
Freedom is the best bond.Hence getting an employee to sign a bond (especially fresher’s) is more to act as a deterrent and discourage the employees to quit within a short duration.
Instead, you may want to choose to add a clause in his/her offer and/or appointment letter which says that should the employee choose to leave the company within an x period then he/she will be required to reimburse the company the cost of training which will be equivalent to x amount of the employee's ctc.
I agree and I personally believe that signing a bond for training purpose is ok but signing a bond while recruiting is a direct veto on right to livelihood.

Also any company cannot hold the relieving of its employee as until then the employee is on the rolls of their employee and the right to salary and perks are accrued.

The Indian Constitution and Indian Contract Act
Bond was a way devised by some wise HR person USA. As per the law and regulation of USA this kind of arrangement between the employee and employer was acceptable.
But companies practice this bond culture in Indian market without understanding the Legal, Social, and cultural back ground.
As per the Indian Statute bonded labor system was long abolished and no bond can force any person to work against the employees wishes
As per the Article 19 of the Indian Constitution the write work is a fundamental right, and under no circumstance does the Fundamental rights under Article 19 be waived by any person nor can any person be forced to do something that’s amounting to the violation of the rights mentioned under Article 19.
As per the Indian Contract Act contracts entered between two parties if is one sided then such contract would be null and void. Most of the Bonds are one sided i.e. in favor of the employer.

Again as per the Indian Contract Act no contract can be enforced on any person if the contract which is being so enforced causes any harm to the person on whom it is enforced and if performed would violate principles of natural justices.
Hence signing a bond is justifiable in cases where the company imparts huge capital investments, time and efforts on employees to groom them as future managers. However if the company provides good career growth, competitive package and friendly working environment then employees will have a strong bonding with the company and will stay forever.