Blog Details

Since the beginning of the pandemic in 2020, which shook the world, changes in employment patterns have become apparent. The flourishing sectors with dynamic work environments suffered from a lack of jobs and high prices during this period; however demand was minimal.

As the economy continues to struggle in the wake of the pandemic, many people are finding that they need two jobs rather than just one and hence came - moonlighting.

While moonlighters are not a large segment of the workforce, they have long been part of the evolution of work culture.

For various reasons, people often seek multiple jobs at once. These include constraints in their regular work environment that drive them to find additional employment—granting them a chance to develop new skills and experience necessary for professional growth.

Because of job security concerns or plans to pursue a different career path, moonlighters sometimes work in the same industry as their primary jobs and at other times are engaged in totally different industries.

A number of IT companies have recently declared moonlighting to be unfair, and they've dismissed employees who do it. Other IT service companies have adopted a policy allowing employees to moonlight for financial gain.

Proponents of the theory believe that moonlighting is a result of employee dissatisfaction with their primary jobs, which eventually translates into lower pay and fewer overtime hours. Employees will always have the choice on deciding whether to use their skills for personal or professional advancement based on the amount of time they have available, unless there are laws or covenants prohibiting so in place.

What does moonlighting mean?

The act of getting paid for work by more than one employer, without informing either the employers or co-workers about your other jobs is known as "moonlighting." The term “moonlighting” comes from the fact that most people carry out this type of behavior at night time when they are supposed to be sleeping.

A shorter workweek seems to correlate with a willingness among moonlighters to accept secondary employment in rigid or even full time-scheduling environments.

Typically, a moonlighter works part time on their secondary job, under a flexible, self-determined schedule.

Underemployed workers—people who have jobs but aren’t earning enough to meet their desires and expectations—feel like they need to work more hours than are available in order for the primary job. They then turn toward other activities or part-time roles that provide extra money, fulfillment of some kind (or both).

More evidence of moonlighters has been found in the Information Technology sector, where since the delivery of service is in the online mode, it is more difficult to track who is working when and if the person is engaging in alternate employment.

Subcontracting the performance of multiple jobs to moonlighters enables companies to get more done faster, but this practice has raised ethical issues. The law does not prohibit it outright, though.

With moonlighting, every worker would hold two different job titles. And since the legality of each second position depends on the particulars of that individual’s contract with his employer , there’s no guarantee that moonlighting would always be legal. Some companies might not mind their employees holding down another job, but others might prohibit it outright.

Concerns about the quality and consumer welfare of goods have often been expressed, but there is no evidence that public sector enterprises suffer losses because of them.

There is no express definition of dual employment in Indian law, but Section 27 of the Contract Act prohibits a non-compete clause.

A non-compete clause prevents an employee from starting their own business, accepting an offer of employment with a competitor or disclosing confidential information gained during their tenure to the detriment of their former employer.

The law on this issue is not completely settled, although it appears that Indian courts will likely find dual employment to be a violation of the employer's non-compete clause.

The Industrial Employment Act, 1946 permits dual employment. But the Factories Act of 1948 prohibits workers from holding two jobs. However many states have exempted IT companies from this law because they provide a great benefit to these states' economies.

The Supreme Court in Niranjan Shankar Golikari versus The Century Spinning & Mfg. Co. (1967) affirmed the noncompete clause of an employment contract, thereby preventing a former employee from joining their employer’s competitor. The court ruled that a negative covenant must, at the time it is made, be reasonable and not excessively harsh or one-sided.

The Delhi High Court, in Wipro Limited v. Beckman Coulter International SA (2006) generally courts allow non-solicitation clauses that prohibit the employee from soliciting or disclosing company secrets. Even the Madras High Court, in Government of Tamil Nadu versus Tamil Nadu Race Course General Employees Union (1993) stated that employers should be aware that the law allows for dual employment if there is no prohibition in the contract or if consent is given. Employers can avoid indulging an employee with moonlighting, by making sure both parties are clear on what counts as legitimate work and what does not.

Therefore, it is only when there are clear guidelines as to what types of agreements an employee can enter into after leaving the company that moonlighting may be allowed.