Making moonlighting unnecessarily cloudy

Workers of the world - white or blue-collared, polo-necked or tee-shirted - were united in an off-duty chuckle upon learning that GoI has proclaimed that staff cannot take on work that's 'against the interest of the industrial establishment in which he is employed and shall not take any employment in addition to his job in the establishment, which may affect the interest of his employer'. For most ears, that's like being told that stealing money from the company cash box is a no-no. As obvious things go, GoI's response to whether 'moonlighting' is cause enough for termination of employment is particularly obvious. After all, even proponents of moonlighting aren't silly enough to say that multiple jobs can be at the cost of one's main line of employment. Complications arise only if, say, a person moonlights for a firm that takes supari - assassination orders - and it contracts the moonlighter to kill the person's main employee. That would not be moonlighting but crossing over.

In a context more suitable for government comprehension, moonlighting could be working for government and a private party - party in government included - without a conflict of interest. To say 'as long as government interest is not harmed' would be a given that need not be spelt out, unless one wants to fudge an outright no-objection for moonlighting.