Moonlighting in India: Bridging the Gap Between Corporate Perception and Legal Truth on the Second Job

INTRODUCTION

In September 2022, Wipro's chairman announced the termination of the employment of 300 individuals after discovering they were simultaneously working for a rival company (TechCrunch, 2022) . Shortly after,[1]  Infosys sent an internal mail to its employees titled “no double lives”, warning them that dual employment [2] is strictly prohibited and that violations can lead to disciplinary actions and even termination(Business Standard, 2022).

In contrast the Minister of State for Electronics and Information Technology took the opposite stance and said that the younger workforce's attitude towards work had changed, and companies (old-established) seemed unaware of the fact [3] (Rest of World, 2022). In two weeks the word had come out from the fringes of the debate of employment discussion into the national conversation.

One of the most alarming things this entire incident demonstrated was the great gap between perception and legal truth. People on all sides of the divide spoke about "the law" with remarkable ease but barely anybody could address how that was actually supposed to function, which law we were talking about and whether it actually covered the employees concerned. This piece is an attempt at filling that gap. It considers (i) what Indian law actually says and does not say about engaging in a dual profession, (ii) how courts have approached this question, and (iii) the consequences an employee faces by choosing to take up outside work without informing the primary employer.

THE ABSENCE OF A CENTRAL STATUTE

There are no specific laws in India which define ‘moonlighting’ and prohibit it in all sectors. This absence often surprises people, particularly those who assume that a topic that is discussed so extensively and widely must have a legislation of its own. However, the legal position on dual employment in India can be understood based on various pieces of legislations including sector specific labour statutes, standing orders for certain categories of workers, shop & commercial establishment legislations passed by states, general law of contract and court precedents over the last few decades (Guvi, 2026). None of these sources, if taken alone, would answer the questions that the salaried professionals ask. They, rather, come together to form an actual legal position which is much narrower than what the debate on the subject usually suggests.

THE STATUTORY CORE: DOUBLE EMPLOYMENT IN FACTORIES AND MINES

On 21 November 2025, the Government of India notified four comprehensive Labour codes into effect, effectively consolidating 29 separate legacy central labour laws into a single unified framework.

The restriction on being employed at two different factories simultaneously was previously located in section 60 of the Factories Act which now resides in the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (‘OSH Code’). This provision, in essence, asks if a worker has already been employed by another factory during their workday on the current calendar day, whereas the provisions of the new code simply uses a rolling window of the preceding twelve hours, rather than requiring that employment be exclusive for the entirety of an individual’s workday (Deskera 2022).

Courts built a fairly consistent body of interpretation around the older provision. That reasoning offers the best available guide to how the new one will likely be read, since no reported judgment has yet tested the OSH Code's version directly. In the case of Manubhai Gorbhandas v. Arvind Mills Company (MANU/MH/0045/1956), the Bombay High Court upheld the dismissal of a factory worker who had taken a second job. The court reasoned that continuous work across two full-time positions could not be sustained at a consistent standard (BNB Legal, 2024). The Punjab and Haryana High Court reached a similar conclusion in Gulbahar v. Presiding Officer, sustaining a driver's termination after salary slips from a second employer were produced as evidence during the disciplinary proceedings (BNB Legal, 2024). This provision, old or new, has a narrow reach. Both versions apply to "workers" inside factories and mines and they exclude anyone in a supervisory, managerial, or administrative role (Legal Service India, n.d.; India Law, 2026). When large IT employers spoke of moonlighting in terms of legality, the statute they cited never actually reached the employees being disciplined.

STANDING ORDERS AND THE DUTY OF EXCLUSIVE SERVICE

Standing Orders and the Duty of Exclusive Service Employees classified as "workmen" face a narrower but enforceable obligation of exclusive service. This obligation is present in the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, which replaced the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1946. A worker must not act against the interests of the establishment employing him and must not take up additional work likely to prejudice those interests (Lawrbit, 2025). Although the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 is in force, it still relies upon central as well as state level rules for implementation which creates a coverage gap similar to that found under the OSH code. This coverage gap resembles the one under the OSH Code. "Worker" status excludes supervisory, managerial, and highly compensated professional roles. That exclusion covers most IT sector employees, who were at the centre of the 2022 debate. The exclusive service obligation is real and enforceable for the workers it covers and does not cover most of the salaried professional workforce.

THE CONTRACTUAL DIMENSION

For most Indians, none of the statutes discussed above have any relevance. In reality contracts they sign on the first day of joining binds the employees to the organizations they work for. Most companies in the IT and Technology Services sector have exclusivity clauses in their contracts which state that the employee must give his/her full time and attention to work and cannot take up any other paid work without the organization’s prior approval (CareerLens, 2026).

Indian courts have repeatedly ruled in favour of the validity of such clauses as long as the employee is bound to the organization, based on the Indian Contract Act. According to the case Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. The Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1967 SCR (2) 378), any negative covenant by an employee to not take up similar work elsewhere while still employed at the company is not considered a restraint of trade and therefore legal, unless it is “the contract as aforesaid is unconscionable or excessively harsh or unreasonable or one-sided”. This is the main basis for all cases relating to employment and exclusivity in India.

On the other hand, Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 renders any agreement that restrains a person from exercising their profession or trade void and unenforceable. In the case Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Bharat Coca-Cola Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (1999, ILR 2 Delhi 193), the Delhi High Court declared a post-employment restrictive covenant void and against public policy. A clause that stops an employee from taking up any other work while employed would most likely be found legal. However, the same clause would be considered unenforceable if applied to an ex-employee.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

The right to practice any profession occupation is provided and protected under Article 19(1)(g) while the livelihood as a fundamental right has been interpreted under Article 21 by the Court in the case of Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni (1982). The said case was primarily concerned with legal representation of an employee before a departmental enquiry and not with the secondary employment, but the rationale behind the decision, that a person’s reputation and livelihood being protected under Article 21, was used subsequently to interpret the law on moonlighting (Casemine, 1982). However, no court in India has so far invalidated even a single exclusivity clause on this particular constitutional argument in a moonlighting dispute.

The Government of Tamil Nadu v. Tamil Nadu Race Course General Employees Union (1993 I LLJ 977 Mad) case further clarifies the situation and states that dual-employment is permissible if the contract does not prohibit it explicitly or if the employer consents to it (JLRJS, 2023).

CONCLUSION 

The broader discussion on the issue of moonlight in India has sometimes been presented as a clash of the values of loyalty and entrepreneurship or perhaps as a dispute over authority vs autonomy. Yet, the actual legal history of cases presents a rather more restricted and technical outcome. Indian law neither prohibits a second job as a general matter, nor does it guarantee a legal right to take one.

It rather asks a specific, answerable question: what terms did the parties agree to and whether that agreement has been broken?

Readers seeking further detail on these restrictive covenant disputes may track Bar and Bench's employment law coverage that has followed this line of cases closely.

For the employees considering a second source of income, the safest starting point would be the document each of them signed in the beginning of their work, as it was even before the whole controversy and as it is likely to remain in future as well.

REFERENCES

BNB Legal. (2024). Exploring the legality of moonlighting in India and abroad. https://bnblegal.com/article/exploring-the-legality-of-moonlighting-in-india-and-abroad/

CareerLens. (2026). Moonlighting policy India 2026: Legal rules and risks. https://www.carrerlens.com/blog/moonlighting-in-india-2026-whats-legal-what-gets-you-fired-and-what-companies-ac

Deskera. (2022). Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020. https://www.deskera.com/blog/occupational-safety-health-and-working-conditions-code/

Guvi. (2026). Moonlighting in India: Is it legal? How to do it safely in 2026. https://www.guvi.in/blog/moonlighting-in-india/

JLRJS. (2023). Moonlighting: Dual employment in Indian law. https://jlrjs.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/60.-Veeramreddy-Malakondareddy.pdf

Lawrbit. (2025). Moonlighting in India: Know legal risks and compliance rules. https://www.lawrbit.com/article/legal-aspects-of-moonlighting-in-india/

Legal Service India. (n.d.). Moonlighting: Dual employment in Indian law. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-9591-moonlighting-dual-employment-in-indian-law.html

Press Information Bureau. (2025). Industry bodies and consulting firms welcome implementation of four labour codes in the country. https://www.newsonair.gov.in/industry-bodies-welcome-implementation-of-four-labour-codes-hail-landmark-reform/

Rest of World. (2022). Moonlighting in the Indian IT sector: Are Wipro and Infosys right? https://restofworld.org/2022/newsletter-south-asia-moonlighting-indian-law/