Moonlighting, Multiple Employment, and the New Governance Imperative in Indian Hiring

Remote work has permanently altered the structure of employment in India's technology sector. Distributed teams and flexible schedules have unlocked access to talent at scale, but they've also made it far easier for employees to hold multiple full-time roles without disclosure.

The scale of this goes well beyond the occasional freelancer. A Times of India investigation in 2024 reported that background verification firm AuthBridge uncovered an IT employee working simultaneously for 78 companies, with all firms crediting Provident Fund contributions into the same account. OnGrid, another screening provider, tracked an individual who started with two concurrent employers in 2021 and had secured employment with 15 by the end of 2023. According to IDfy, eight out of ten IT clients now run moonlighting checks on their employees.

‍Randstad India reported a 25 to 30 per cent increase in moonlighting activity across the IT sector over a three-year period. And the motivations aren't hard to understand. Indeed India's research points to low salaries relative to workload, rising inflation, pandemic-era job insecurity, and entrepreneurial ambitions as the primary drivers.

The leadership challenge here isn't how to respond after violations surface. It's how to build hiring and governance systems that make undisclosed dual employment far less likely to occur.

‍The data shows this is a structural issue, not isolated misconduct

AuthBridge's Workforce Fraud Files 2025, analysing background verification data from October 2024 to March 2025, found a 6 per cent discrepancy rate among white-collar hires and a 9.46 per cent overall discrepancy rate in the IT/ITES sector specifically. Nearly one in five IT candidates misrepresented their credentials, with inflated job titles, exaggerated tenures, and unverifiable employers among the most common red flags. Five per cent of white-collar employees were found to be moonlighting, concentrated in remote and flexible work roles.

Their H1 FY2026 follow-up report confirmed the pattern is holding steady: a 4.33 per cent discrepancy rate for white-collar roles and 12.80 per cent CV validation discrepancies in the IT sector alone.

For companies in IT services, consulting, fintech, and product engineering where client trust underpins the commercial relationship, these numbers represent material governance risk across conflicts of interest, IP leakage, data security, and regulatory non-compliance.

‍India's legal framework leaves gaps that employers need to fill

One reason moonlighting has proliferated so quickly is that Indian law hasn't kept pace. Legal analysis from Corrida Legal notes that Section 60 of the Factories Act, 1948, prohibits dual factory employment on the same day, but it doesn't cover IT professionals or anyone in a supervisory role. State-level Shops and Establishments Acts vary widely and were written long before remote knowledge work existed. In practice, the legality of moonlighting rests almost entirely on employment contracts and company policy.

This puts the burden on organisations to set clear terms at hiring and build systems that can identify non-compliance. Waiting for legislation to close the gap isn't a viable strategy.

‍Backward-looking checks miss forward-looking risks

Conventional screening verifies educational qualifications, prior employment history, and criminal records. These are necessary, but they only confirm what happened before the hire. They don't address whether a new employee is currently working for another company or developing competing products in their off-hours.

The most reliable method for catching dual employment in India is verification through the Universal Account Number (UAN), administered by the EPFO. Because every employer's PF contributions are linked to a single UAN, overlapping contribution periods from multiple employers are immediately visible. It's government-maintained transactional data that's difficult to fabricate.

Modern screening needs to go further than the standard checklist: verification of current employment status at hiring, explicit disclosure requirements, structured conflict-of-interest attestations, periodic re-verification, and clear contractual exclusivity language.

‍Attitudes are shifting, and policy needs to keep up

Employee sentiment adds complexity. Randstad's 2023 research found that nine in ten employees said an employer was "much more attractive" if it permitted additional work. Meanwhile, Indeed's survey showed almost half of employers disapproved, citing concerns about productivity and margins. A Cutshort survey of 3,000 tech professionals found that about 23 per cent had moonlighted at some point, with 7 per cent actively doing so.

Strict exclusivity policies without competitive compensation may push concealment rather than transparency. The companies managing this well pair clear governance with fair opportunity and open dialogue, creating environments where people want to stay and contribute honestly.

‍Continuous verification builds trust that a one-time check can't

Screening at the point of hire is a starting point, not a solution. Forward-looking organisations complement pre-hire checks with annual conflict-of-interest declarations, re-verification triggers during role changes, segmented access controls for sensitive data, and ethics training tied to digital conduct expectations.

For multinational companies operating across geographies, centralised verification through technology partners ensures consistent standards whether you're hiring in Mumbai, Manila, or Manchester.

Trust remains the foundation of any employment relationship. In distributed, digital workforces, that trust has to be maintained through clear policies, consistent verification, and a culture where transparency is the expectation from day one.

If you're reviewing your screening processes or considering how continuous verification fits into your hiring framework, book a complimentary consultation with one of our specialists.