Under Indian law, any agreement that restrains a person from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business after termination of employment is generally void and unenforceable. This principle is enshrined in Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which states:

“Every agreement by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind is to that extent void.”
The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark case of Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1967), held that post-employment restraint agreements constitute an unlawful restriction on trade and are therefore void under Section 27. The Court clarified that such restraints are only enforceable during the period of employment to protect the employer’s legitimate interest, but once the employment relationship ends, the employee is free to engage in any lawful profession or trade.

However, certain restrictive covenants such as confidentiality agreements and non-solicitation clauses designed to protect the employer’s trade secrets, proprietary information, or business goodwill may be enforceable even after the termination of employment, provided they are reasonable in scope and necessary to protect legitimate interests.

In conclusion, a clause seeking to prevent an ex-employee from working elsewhere after leaving employment, commonly known as a post-employment non-compete clause, is void in India and cannot be legally enforced, except in so far as it protects confidential information or prevents solicitation of clients or employees.