Love contract -Gross Discrimination !

The case talks about two things:
1.The love contract between the parties who are supposedly into a relationship.
2.the effect of "relationship" on the productivity and performance of the involved parties and upon the working environment of the company as a whole.

And the contract talks primarily of following main points:
1.By signing this “Dating and Relationship Agreement” we declare openly and explicitly that ours is a voluntary relationship of mutual consensus;

2.we both of us guarantee that our relationship would not affect our performance in our jobs directly or indirectly and promise to avoid any romantic and / or sexual behavior within the organization.

3.we would always strive hard to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of business operations avoiding any possible misunderstanding, moral, ethical, and social problems such as favoritism, nepotism, corruption, sexual harassment etc.,

I will present my opinions examining each of the above mentioned points.
1. By declaring that the relation between parties is by mutual consent, the organization in a way is making its case safe, so in case of conflict the company is in no way responsible for situations arising out of the 'voluntary relationship' and the pair is bound to solve its problems mutually.

2. The employer has every right to make sure that the performance in no way is affected by such relationships. But, it involves a lot of issues. Though professor has not included any cricket this time around in the forum, I will make for it!
Some years back, when Greg Chappell was the coach, he instructed the players not to travel along with their wives, as he had apprehensions that this will affect their performance. Similarly, there are many professions like Secret service(RAW, CIA)
scientific Research etc, in which the employees have to sacrifice their personal lives for their professional conduct. But again there are cases where the employees in relationship, tend to perform better, mainly because they are happy and more fulfilled-(feel good factor).

So the reason for low performance lies in the Distractions, which may or may not be relationships. A distraction can be wife as well for a newly wed person( or even for a person who has been married for so many years and love his wife very much for that matter).

This doesnt give any right to the employer to proceed against this married employee on the basis of his marital status, until and unless it starts interfering with his responsibilities at the work place. In this case, GM(HR) makes a reference to Pritam about his chances of being promoted and sent to Detroit office. Now, if hes being considered for a promotion, that means his performance is well up to the mark(nothing has been mentioned about Jagruti's performance), and in such a case it is not advisable for the company to force Pritam to sign such a contract.

3.Though the employer cannot poke his nose into the private affairs of the employees, but still if the things become too obvious or start conflicting with the larger interests of the organization, the employer has to step in.

(Too obvious means display of affection openly in at the workplace due to which others might feel uncomfortable.
Conflict of interests mean superseding one's own interests over the company's.)

The employer may do this by forming an anti-nepotism policy. This may be useful when to enforce the anti-nepotism throughout the organization. This is simple in nature as it just states that there shall be no favoritism from the relationships-direct/indirect.

This shall not only include the Platonic relationships but also more stereotype relationships like between husband and wife, or may be father and daughter, father and son etc., etc. After all there are equal chances of favoritism and nepotism in all the mentioned relationships. So, why only target the 'Lovers'? This will amount to gross discrimination.