It has to be signed by both the parties 

if not signed by employer not binding upon you 

For the bond to have legal validity it should not be one sided or just favour the employer. The court always questions the reasonability of the bond for it to be accepted legally.

2)

The requirements of a valid employment bond agreement.

1. The agreement must be signed by both the parties with free consent.
2. The conditions stipulated must be reasonable.
3. The conditions imposed on the employee must be proved to be necessary to safeguard the interest of the employer.

3) The employment bond will not be enforceable if it is either one sided, unconscionable or unreasonable

Don’t have any such judgment 

A service bond without an employer's signature is not valid. A service bond is a legal contract between an employer and employee, and it must be signed by both parties. 

A service bond must be in writing and signed by both parties. 

It must be stamped with the required stamp duty. 

It must be a valid contract under the Indian Contract Act of 1872. 

It must be fair and not excessively restrictive. 

It must comply with the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947.

An employment bond is only valid if it meets certain conditions, including that it is a valid contract and both parties voluntarily agree to the terms. If the bond is not valid, then any deductions made from an employee's salary are not legally enforceable.

Bonds are only valid if the company has spent money on the employees' personal care and advancement, not merely on getting them ready for work. To show that the bond is lawful, it should also not be biased or in the employer's favour.

The judgements can be cited only before the court of law in the event of any dispute in this regard before court.

You can simply refer to the provisions of Indian Contract Act to solve the problem or you can resort to legal action through your lawyer.

Definitely it is important for acceptance with signature if same is not there they should be sim document corroborating the fact that the said bond is not requiring signature and its automated 

Dear Client,   

The enforceability of an employment bond, specifically the Service Agreement Bond you signed, depends on various parameters, including whether it is enforceable under Indian contract law. For a contract to be valid, certain criteria should be followed regarding mutual consent and acceptance by both parties. The absence of the employer's signature in the particular field was labeled "Accepted on behalf of the Employer; " this does indicate that the bond may thus not be executed formally by the employer. This may tend to make the bond unenforceable since acceptance from one party is not demonstrated.   

However, the issue is somewhat complicated because you have yet to pay the amount remaining in the bond post-resignation, thus indicating that a form of implicit accord of the bond terms and conditions has taken place. The Indian Courts typically allow employment bonds that are not destructive of their essence of reasonableness, proportionality, and legitimate interest. Where bond terms prove to be severely constrictive, arbitrary, or one-sided, the employment bond should then be well rendered void and simply negates the signing-affixed issue.   

You may contest the bond's validity in a court of law, arguing, among other things, that the absence of the employer's signature means that there is no formal acceptance of the contract. In turn, any deduction from the salary that takes place under the bond terms without any valid execution can further be contested. Approaching a legal professional competent in employment law is advised to assess how strong your claim is and guide you on any relevant measures which could involve issuing a legal notice or taking your case to court for the recovery of the money you had already paid under the bond.   

Hope this solves the query. Feel free to revert for further legal inquiries.     

1. The instrument signed and executed  by you is not an service against between employee and employer. It is an undertaking given by you to the  employer for discharging the  obligation mentioned in the  
2. Title of an instrument is not important, it is the content of instrument that will considered.
3. A bond is document that binds the executant of bond.

1. Employer's Signature:

   • The absence of the employer's signature raises questions about mutual consent, a key element of a valid contract.
   • However, courts may infer deemed acceptance since ₹5000 was deducted monthly, indicating the bond’s implementation.

2. Bond Validity:

   • Employment bonds are valid if reasonable, not penal, and serve legitimate business interests.
   • Lack of the employer's signature can be challenged as failure to meet mutual consent, making the bond unenforceable.

3. Case Laws:

   • 
     Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. T. Thankam (2015): Contracts without proper execution are unenforceable unless conduct shows acceptance.
   • 
     Superintendence Co. v. Krishan Murgai (1981): Restraints must not violate Section 27 of the Contract Act.

4. Challenge Grounds:

   • Bond lacks mutual consent (no employer signature).
   • ₹3 lakh penalty may be deemed unreasonable under Section 27 of the Contract Act.

Suggested Steps:

• File a challenge citing lack of mutual consent and reasonableness.
• Use precedents like Sundaram Finance to support your case.
• Consult a labor lawyer for strategic filing.

For detailed, personalized advice, consider a phone consultancy. Hope you find the information helpful. You are free to contact me for further discussion. If you could spare two minutes of your time to write a review, it would be greatly appreciated and bring immense happiness to read it. Thank you. Shubham Goyal.

The validity of an employment bond under Indian law hinges on mutual consent and acceptance, as required by the Indian Contract Act, 1872. In your case, the absence of the employer's signature in the designated field weakens the bond's enforceability, as mutual agreement must be demonstrable for the bond to be binding. While the employer’s argument of deemed acceptance through the deduction of ₹5,000 monthly might hold weight in some instances, the lack of formal execution undermines their claim, particularly when explicit acceptance through a signature is required. Furthermore, courts, as in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath Ganguly (1986), have held that employment bonds must meet the tests of fairness and reasonableness. If the bond is incomplete or imposes disproportionate penalties, it can be challenged under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act or argued to violate public policy. You have strong grounds to contest the bond, as the lack of the employer’s formal acceptance raises questions about its enforceability. It is advisable to seek legal counsel to identify precedents supporting your case and strategise further.

Thanks and Regards,
Advocate Aman Verma, Legal Corridor