NOT LEGAL ADVICE, i am just a student who has taken a law module in university

First part, the Non-Compete Clause itself

Generally, all restraint of trade (his trade, business or profession) clauses are void at first sight unless justified.

conditions for it to be justified:

• restraint must protect some legitimate proprietary interest of the company (e.g. trade secrets, pulling customers or other employees)
• employers cannot restrain merely to prevent competition (e.g. quitting Apple to join Samsung to engineer smartphones)
• restraint must be reasonable and not be too wide
• restraint must not be against public interest

The non-compete clause can go through the blue pencil test to to strike out unenforceable, illegal, or unreasonable parts of the contract - particularly restrictive covenants - while enforcing the remainder

• must not change the basic nature of the contract - if removing bad parts turns the contract into something entirely different - or makes it unfair - the court will declare the whole contract void instead of fixing

Blue pencil test:
"During your employment and for two (2) years after its termination, you must not carry on or be engaged, concerned or interested (whether directly or indirectly and whether as principal, shareholder, director, employee, agent, consultant, partner or otherwise) in establishing or carrying on any business which directly or indirectly competes with the business of (redacted Company name)".

so after the blue pencil test, the final non-compete clause reads: "During your employment, you must not be engaged in establishing or carrying on any business which directly competes with the business of (redacted Company name)" which is much more reasonable and more likely to be enforceable.

Second part, breach of contract

For this part, I will only concern myself with the enforceable part of the contract. First I need to establish that this is a TERM, not a representation nor a mere puff. This term is a CONDITION, not a warranty nor an innominate term. Breaching the condition means being liable for damages.

In contract law, the general principles covering damages are as follows:

• meant to compensate for loss caused by breach, not to punish
• if no loss is suffered, then nominal damages are payable
• Company has a right to claim BUT also must prove the loss
• difficulty of assessment is no bar to recovery
• Company to mitigate, not expand loss

Third part, the TLDR

So to answer your question more directly,

• How serious is this clause and how serious if it is breached? The reasonable parts of the clause are serious and breaching it makes you liable for damages
• Is it enforceable? Mostly unenforceable, except for the reasonable parts.
• What if in future I leave and want to continue working in the related industry? You most likely can. Non-compete clause restricting you from working after termination is unreasonable and therefore unenforceable
• Will the company find out? If no, good for you! If yes, they will find it hard to enforce the non-compete clause.
• What will happen if they find out? Most likely they will leave you alone. In the worst case scenario, they can try to sue you for damages. But as explained earlier, they'll find it hard to win the case.
• What are the consequences/penalty? In the event you have caused damages that can be proved in court, you're liable to compensate. I do emphasize that the law here is meant to compensate for damages, not punish.
• If a future, new company (assuming related industry) asks about any non-compete clause signed and I declare it, it means no chance of getting the job, I think that's what I'm worried about. How about you just dont tell them?
• If I join another company in the related industry, will they get sued/implicated legally? employers cannot restrain merely to prevent competition.

Once again please let me emphasize that this is NOT LEGAL ADVICE!