Skip to main content

Legal Capsule by SAMVĀD: PARTNERS

Dual Employment or Moonlighting in India

‘Moonlighting’ or dual employment, refers to the practice of taking up a second job, often covertly, outside normal business hours, while continuing to be formally employed with another employer. In India, moonlighting is often perceived as a way of acquiring an additional source of income and improving one’s skillset, especially amongst certain categories of skilled employment. With the introduction of ‘Work-From-Home’ ("WFH”) policies during the pandemic, this concept appears to have gained traction recently and different companies have sought to address it - albeit in different ways, however, the concept of dual employment has been rampant in the unskilled sector in India, due to a lack of job security and low levels of income. The intent behind moonlighting therefore, clearly differs across sectors in the labour market.

At the outset, there are limited provisions that actively restrict moonlighting. However, most companies adopt contractual restrictions, in the absence of specific legislative protection, to prevent moonlighting by their employees. For example, employment agreements usually include a clause restricting the employee from acquiring employment elsewhere during the term of employment. Hence, if caught moonlighting, an employee of such a company could be terminated for breach of the terms of his or her employment.

In this note, we take a look at the applicable laws in relation to moonlighting and its legal implications, as elaborated in the jurisprudence relating to it.

Applicable Legislation

The Factories Act, 1948 and the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Rules, 1946, prohibit adult workers from engaging in dual employment. Further, rules related to dual employment have been captured under State-specific labour laws such as the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954.

·                     Section 60 of the Factories Act, 1948: It restricts employees of a factory in engaging in double employment in India, when they are already working in a factory.

·                     Section 9 of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954: It restricts employees from working in two or more establishments, in excess of the period during which he may be lawfully employed under the legislation. However, while this provision reads as a restriction on dual employment, it can also be interpretated to mean a restriction on overtime work, as it is tied to the period of time during which an employee may be engaged to work.

·                     Schedule I-B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Rules, 1946: It restricts workmen from taking up any employment that may prejudice the interests of the industrial establishment in which he is employed.

·                     Clause 22 of the draft Model Standing Orders for Service Sector, 2020: While these model standing orders are not notified under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, the relevant clause states that a workman is expected to refrain from working against the interest of the establishment in which he is employed and shall not take up any other employment that may adversely impact the interests of his employer. However, a worker may take up additional employment, with or without conditions, after obtaining the necessary permission from his employer. Therefore, the new labour codes, seem to address the reality of the industrial sector, whereby workers tend to engage in dual employment and where gig workers are typically engaged in such establishments.

Judicial Precedents

In this section, we analyse certain judicial precedents that have expounded the principles of law relevant to moonlighting or dual employment in India.

In most cases, Indian courts have upheld the termination of an employee for moonlighting or dual employment. For instance, in the case of Gulbahar vs Presiding Officer Industrial[1], the High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld the termination of an employee who was engaged in double employment, as alleged by the employer and upheld the dismissal.

Similarly, the Bombay High Court was of the opinion that the dismissal of a factory worker for double employment under Section 60 of the Factories Act, 1948 was neither excessive nor harsh but was in fact reasonable, as by engaging in dual employment, the worker was depriving his employer from the best of his services as it is humanly impossible to work at the same quality and efficiency for extended periods of time, continuously.[1]

Another scenario that was upheld by courts would be if the certified standing orders of a company clearly outline a restriction on dual employment and consider it as an act of misconduct. In such a case, courts have upheld moonlighting as an act of misconduct which would invalidate any relief, if it is established beyond reasonable doubt.[2]

Therefore, if an employee engages in dual employment when there are clear restrictions in place, the courts have so far, adopted an employer-friendly view.

Present Scenario

In the recent past, moonlighting has risen as a side-effect of the pandemic and various companies across industries have adopted different approaches as regards to how this issue should be dealt with. For instance, according to publicly available information, it appears that certain companies have allowed employees to take up additional projects or demarcated certain jobs as ‘side gigs’, within their organisation, outside business hours, for the development of their skill set, while others have strictly forbidden dual employment and have resorted to terminating employees found moonlighting, for breach of their contracts.

Issues such as confidentiality, non-compete, ownership and assignment of intellectual property of employees as well as contribution to employment social benefit schemes, such as under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 or the Employees' State Insurance Act,1948, are grey areas and legitimate concerns that plague employers when dealing with employees engaging in dual employment.

Certain companies have already adopted measures to address such concerns by regulating the manner in which employees may take up dual employment by way of, illustratively, (a) demarcating projects that require approval and those that do not, majorly on the basis of economic consideration and area of business; (b) requiring strict adherence to their confidentiality and non-compete obligations and ensuring that the envisioned project does not affect their performance or attendance; and (c) treating violation of the dual employment terms, as misconduct, which could lead to disciplinary action or even termination, depending on the severity of said violation.


In light of this, it cannot be denied that moonlighting is a prevalent phenomenon and is here to stay, whether one is in favour of it or not. Accordingly, it is important that the employer should identify the company’s stance when developing and executing their HR policies and practises. Companies can also adopt a moonlighting policy based on their nature of service and employment conditions. A few steps employers can take into account when dealing with moonlighting are:

Contractual Protection: The first line of defence is to incorporate suitable contractual provisions in the terms of employment, whether in the appointment letter or in policies or other documents that form a part of the terms of employment. For example, a non-compete clause is a standard inclusion in most employment contracts and are enforceable during the term of employment. Such negative covenants that are applicable during the term of employment are generally not considered to be violative of Article 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 as a restraint on trade.

Vigilance: Employers need to be vigilant regarding protection of their rights by tracking their employees’ performance levels, investing in better cyber security protection and creating better awareness among their employees. Such an option might be suitable for companies dealing with sensitive or critical data. In fact, clients of such companies might deem it imperative to disallow other work or moonlighting by the employees.

Moonlighting Policy: In case an employer decides to allow moonlighting by their employees, a policy can be implemented whereby the company outlines approvals as well as projects that can be undertaken by such employees. For instance, an employee should not be allowed to take up projects that may require the employee to create or invent products or intellectual property that could be used in the same area of work as their primary employer. Further, the policy should outline and mandate transparency from employees with relation to any additional projects or activities they wish to undertake. The policy should also ensure that the employees continue to adhere to any confidentiality or non-compete obligations that may be in place.

These measures would enable companies to allow their employees to take up additional engagements, in a regulated manner, while ensuring that their own interests are protected, and we are likely to see more organisations adopt such policies as the need for skilled labour or gig workers, rises. 

              NATASHA MAHAJAN

              NIVEDITA UDUPA

                     Senior Associate 

            GEORGE E CYRIAC

[1] CWP No.15088 of 2015.

[1] Manubhai Gorbhandas v. Arvind Mills Company, MANU/MH/0045/1956.

[2] M. Neelakandan v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II Additional District Judge),

Popular posts from this blog

Nasscom announces Short-listed Cos for EMERGE Product Showcase 2010

Software industry association Nasscom has released a shortlist of companies which will be showcased as part of the "EMERGE Product Showcase for 2010" at its Product Conclave 2010 event: Aikon Labs Pvt. Ltd. – A comprehensive idea and initiative management platform that utilizes Web 2.0 and social networking technologies integrated with process management, content management and analytics. The platform helps Enterprises & Academic/Research institutions in tapping ideas from stakeholders in their ecosystem and take them through a stage-gated process to execution. Elina Networks Pvt. Ltd. – Elina creates software based networking and IT management solutions that deliver business continuity and visibility, through robust network security, reliable connectivity, and effective remote IT management. Essentia Soft Solutions – Communities on the Cloud (community as a cloud service) Interviewstreet – Interviewstreet helps you to create your own customized programming tests

"Leveraged stock purchase led Arvind Rao to go astray": Forbes India

Forbes India has an article on the series of events leading to the recent controversial exit of Arvind Rao, Co-founder & CEO of listed Mobile VAS firm OnMobile. On November 23, 2010, Arvind Rao, the 53-year-old co-founder and CEO of OnMobile, bought approximately 6 lakh shares of his company from the open market, representing a little over 1 percent of the company’s total shares....At Rs 277 a share, he had to pony up nearly Rs 16.5 crore to acquire them....So he went ahead and borrowed money to buy the shares, thinking nothing of the interest it entailed or the fact that he’d need to put up nearly half his existing shareholding as collateral...OnMobile’s shares continued to fall from those levels, while Rao’s interest payments ballooned. ...Motivated by OnMobile’s growth all these years, he had never paid much attention to his salary, most of which went towards the monthly rental on his sea-facing apartment in Mumbai and his BMW 7-Series, both paid directly by the company. He r

VC Interview: Shailendra Singh of Sequoia Capital India

In a recent interview to Venture Intelligence, Shailendra Singh discussed some of the firm’s newer investments in the early stage segment including in the online payments space, the progress at a few existing portfolio companies and the active role the firm is playing in helping its portfolio companies scale and succeed in India and globally. Prior to joining the firm in 2006, Singh was a strategy consultant at Bain & Company in New York and before that, an entrepreneur in the digital media industry. Venture Intelligence: How does Sequoia go about identifying potential early stage investments in India? Is there anything different you are doing today than, say, a couple of years back? Shailendra Singh: There is a lot more focus on technology investing and early stage investing. In general, as you might remember a few years ago, we were doing primarily growth investing but in the past 18-odd months, we have had a very strong focus on early stage and that’s continuing. In terms

PE-VC Investments in 2021 hit all time high of $63 Billion

Press Release: Private Equity - Venture Capital (PE-VC) firms invested a record $63 Billion (across 1,202 deals) in Indian companies during 2021, registering  a 57% rise over the   $39.9 Billion (across 913 deals) invested in the previous year ,  reports  Venture Intelligence , a research service focused on private company financials, transactions, and their valuations. (Note: These figures include Venture Capital type investments, but exclude PE investments in Real Estate). India minted a total of 44 " Unicorn"  companies (VC-funded startups valued at $1 Billion or more)  in 2021, 15 of them during Q4'21. The $23.4 Billion invested into the Information Technology sector dominated list of  Unicorns  accounted for more than 37% of the overall value of PE-VC investments in 2021. The October-December 2021 quarter (Q4'21) saw over $5 Billion (across 25 deals) being invested in such companies.  2021 witnessed eight investments worth $1 Billion or more, led by Flipkart'

LSE Podcast with Apax Founder Ron Cohen

Click Here to download an interesting lecture and interaction (at the London School of Economics) with Ron Cohen , founder of global PE firm Apax Partners. Arun Natarajan is the Founder & CEO of Venture Intelligence, the leading provider of data and analysis on private equity, venture capital and M&A deals in India. View free samples of Venture Intelligence newsletters and reports. Email the author at