Bangalore District Court
Sri.Ajay Jayakumar vs Tescra Software Pvt. Ltd on 23 October, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES (SCCH23)
AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF OCTOBER 2020
PRESENT: SMT.ASHWINI M. HATTIHOLI
(B.Com., LL.B),
XXI ADDL. SCJ & ACMM
MEMBER MACT,
BENGALURU.
S.C No.1679/2018
PLAINTIFF Sri.Ajay Jayakumar
S/o Mr.T.M.Jayakumar,
Aged about 33 years,
No.309, Manjunatha Arcade,
Kaggadasapura main road,
Vignan Nagar,
Bengaluru560075.
(By Smt. Geetha D.Philip, Adv.)
V/s
DEFENDANT TESCRA SOFTWARE Pvt. Ltd.
No.20, 4th floor, Lake View
Manor, Annaswamy Mudaliar
Road, Narayan Reddy colony,
Ulsoor, Bengaluru,
Karnataka560042.
(By Sri.B.R.Viswanath, Adv.)
2 S.C.1679/2018
SCCH23
Date of institution of the suit 28.11.2018
Nature of the suit (suit on
pronote, suit for declaration
and possession suit for Recovery of Money
injunction, etc.,)
Date of the commencement of 04062019
recording of the evidence
Date on which judgment was
23.10.2020
pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
01 10 25
XXI ADDL.SCJ & ACMM,
Bengaluru.
:: J U D G M E N T ::
This suit is filed for recovery of sum of Rs.1,96,000/ along with interest at 18% p.m., from the date of filing the suit till payment/realization.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as follows: That the Plaintiff herein joined the defendant company on 2.5.2016 as a System Analyst. The 3 S.C.1679/2018 SCCH23 defendant is a Private Ltd. Company registered and functioning at Bengaluru. The Plaintiff was given an option of working remotely and was accordingly sent to its client location at USA. On the same month the Plaintiff incurred travelling expense of Rs.8,000/ in order to reach the client location, which amount was not paid to him in spite of repeated promises. Being frustrated, the plaintiff submitted his resignation on October 2016 and planned to move to Australia. After a long ordeal the defendant succeeded in persuading the Plaintiff to continue in the job and serve their client while working at Australia with flexible terms. The offer being trustworthy was accepted by the Plaintiff. The defendant also requested the plaintiff to carry the company laptop to serve their clients and to submit it back when he returned to India. The defendant paid the monthly salary regularly on the 10 th of every month to the Plaintiff, until March 2017.
On April 2017, the defendant informed the Plaintiff about the closure of their client's project at Australia and further informed to relieve him by 12.5.2017. He was also assured the salary for the period from April 2017 to 12.5.2017 amounting to Rs.1,48,000/ along with pending travel expenses of 4 S.C.1679/2018 SCCH23 Rs.8,000/, on the day of final settlement. To his shock, the defendant company requested to hand over the company laptop sooner, for final settlement. Since May 2017, the Plaintiff made multiple requests for payment of his due salary. After several communications made in that regard, finally in the month of March 2018 the defendant requested the plaintiff to hand over the laptop and receive his pending salary. With great difficulty and risk attached, the plaintiff had to ship the laptop to his brother in India, incurring cost of Rs.15,000/. Accordingly on 9.3.2018 the said laptop was handed over to the defendant by the plaintiff's brother. But the defendant refused to hand over the settlement cheque and requested him to wait for two more days for final approval. On the same day the defendant also handed over the No dues Certificate with written assurance of final settlement. The plaintiff made repeated request through mails and calls, which were deliberately ignored by the defendant. This forced the plaintiff to write a bad review on the defendant at their parent Company TESCRA GLASSDOOR, which annoyed them and they remained non responsive to any of his requests thereafter. On 6.8.2018 the plaintiff sent a legal notice through his advocate calling upon the 5 S.C.1679/2018 SCCH23 defendant to pay the amount due immediately on the receipt of the said notice. In turn the defendant issued a reply notice of demand only with a view to delay the payment of plaintiff's legitimate claim. To his surprise on 14.9.2018 , the plaintiff received a call from the defendant company who requested him to forgo all legal proceedings and assured settlement if he withdraws the bad review. The same was agreed by the plaintiff and the defendant assured to process the cheque on pending salary within a week, which did not happen; forcing the plaintiff to approach this court.
3. In pursuance of the Summons, the defendant appeared through its Counsel and filed Written Statement, contending that the plaintiff was appointed on 2.5.2016 as a 'System Analyst' on temporary basis. Rest of the plaint averments are denied in toto. Further the defendant claimed that there was no occasion or necessity for it to persuade the plaintiff to work with them. In fact the performance of the plaintiff never warranted such an indulgence by the defendant. Further the defendant has paid the plaintiff for his services rendered upto March 2017. In view of discontinuation of his services from March 2017, quite obviously the plaintiff should have returned the laptop 6 S.C.1679/2018 SCCH23 to the defendant. The fact that the plaintiff had returned the laptop to the defendant itself substantiates that there was no pending dues for which he was entitled to. In an anxiety to make unlawful gain, the plaintiff has invoked the provision of Order XXXVIII of CPC. There was no written contract, email communication etc, which are unilateral on the part of the plaintiff and cannot be concluded as contract. The relief/s claimed do not fall within the ambit of Order 38 of CPC. The claim has no basis and there is no cause of action for the suit. Contending so, prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
4. Based upon the rival pleadings of the parties, this court has framed the following: :: I S S U E S ::
1 Whether plaintiff proves that the Defendant company is due to him a sum of Rs.1,96,000/ payable towards different heads as set out in detail at paragraph No.7 of the plaint?
2 Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for future interest on the suit claim amount @ 18% p.a.?
3 What Order or Decree?7 S.C.1679/2018
SCCH23
5. The GPA holder of the Plaintiff i.e., his brother got himself examined as PW.1. Ex.P1 to P.8 were marked. The ManagerHR and Recruitment of the defendant company was examined as DW.1.
6. Written arguments were filed on both sides.
7. My findings on the above said Issues are as under: Issue No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.3 : As per my final order for the following: :: R E A S O N S ::
8. ISSUE NOs.1 & 2: These issues are taken up together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
9. The GPA holder of the plaintiff filed his examinationinchief by way of affidavit and reiterated the plaint averments. Ex.P1 is GPA executed by the plaintiff in favour of PW.1. The soft copies of the original offer letter; pay slips from May 2016 to March 2017; E mail conversation with Mr.Suman Lal Mukherjee, 8 S.C.1679/2018 SCCH23 Mr.Arun & Mr.Manoj Gupta and the No dues Certificate dated 9.3.2018 are exhibited at Ex's.P.2 to 5. The office copy of the legal notice dated 2.8.2018 issued to the defendant company, postal acknowledgment depicting the service of the said legal notice and reply notice are marked at Ex.P6. Ex.P7 & 8 are the CD containing the call recording between the plaintiff and Mr.Arun (ManagerHR & Recruitment of the defendant company) after issuance of the reply notice by the defendant company & its soft copy. As far as the admissibility of Ex's.P4, 7 and 8 is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff relied upon a decision in (2014) 10 SCC 473 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that " Electronic record produced for the inspection of the court is documentary evidence under Sec.3 of the Evidence Act, 1872, (the Evidence Act). Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sec.59 & 65A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Sec.65B of the Evidence Act. The purpose of these provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form generated by a computer. The very admissibility of electronic record which is called as "computer output", depends on the satisfaction of the four 9 S.C.1679/2018 SCCH23 conditions prescribed under Sec.65B(2) of the Evidence Act."
Under Sec.65B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) There must be a certificate which should identify the electronic record containing the statement;
(b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced;
(c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record;
(d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned u/s 65B(2) of the Evidence Act; and
(e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device.
Admittedly in the instant suit all the mandatory requirements enumerated in Sec.65B were fulfilled, hence my learned predecessor in office admitted Ex's.P4, 7 and 8 in evidence. Moreover the defendant 10 S.C.1679/2018 SCCH23 company has not led in any contra evidence to doubt the genuineness thereof or to controvert the statements made therein. As far as relevance of said documents is concerned it is to be specifically noted that these are the only documents upon which the proof of plaintiff's claim is based.
10. The fact that the plaintiff was appointed by the Defendant company on 2.5.2016 as a 'System Analyst' is not in dispute. Though DW.1 contends that the said appointment was on temporary basis, but perusal of Ex.P2 Offer letter & Ex.P3 Salary slip (both issued by the defendant company in favour of the plaintiff) make it evident that the plaintiff was not a temporary employee of the defendant company. Moreover the defendant company has not produced any document to substantiate its contention. Sri.Arun kumar, ManagerHR & Recruitment of the Defendant company who was examined as DW.1 deposed that the plaintiff's work was not satisfactory. After termination of the contract between Plaintiff and the defendant company on 9.3.2018, the plaintiff received No dues Certificate through his brother. On the same day itself the Plaintiff's brother returned the laptop and other 11 S.C.1679/2018 SCCH23 equipments given to the plaintiff by the defendant company. In fact the company never assigned any work to the plaintiff after termination of the contract. The salary of the plaintiff is settled upto March 2017. The work assigned by the defendant company to the Plaintiff was completed on 29.3.2017. Therefore there was no occasion to extend the work as claimed by the plaintiff. Further there was no agreement for the extension of work and the plaintiff does not have any document to show the alleged extension period or nature of work. The Plaintiff is trying to tarnish the image of the defendant company just in order to make unlawful gains.
11. In the same line of defence, PW.1 was cross examined, wherein it was elicited from his mouth that "
I have no personal knowledge about entering of contract between my brother and defendant company. I am claiming the amount from the period 5.4.2017 to
12.5.2017". However going further Pw.1 voluntarily deposed that "the company again called him to work for one more month. I do not know whether there was a written contract between my brother and the defendant company for the said extended period. After filing of the 12 S.C.1679/2018 SCCH23 suit I have not inquired with my brother about the documents regarding such extension".
12. PW.1 has deposed that the defendant company is due an amount of Rs.1,48,000/ to the plaintiff towards salary of April 2017 (entire) and May 2017 (12 days). Admittedly no contract in writing is produced to show that there was an extension of the plaintiff's services in the defendant company from 1 st April to 12th May 2017. But the relevant Email conversations between the client partner of the Defendant company and plaintiff, exhibited at Ex.P4 are noteworthy and are reproduced as follows. 6.12.2017 at 4.10 p.m [email protected]< [email protected]> To: Ajay J< [email protected]> Hi Ajay, Can you forward me the dates during which you reengaged with Wynn on a consulting basis after your first break which was 29th March.
7.12.2017 at 7.24 a.m Ajay J< [email protected]> To:Suman Lal Mukherjee< [email protected]> 13 S.C.1679/2018 SCCH23 Hi Suman, After relieving on March 29th, there was a one week's gap and I reconvened on April 6th till May 12th. 7.12.2017 at 7.40 a.m [email protected]<[email protected]> To: Ajay J< [email protected]> And till when was your last salary processed? 7.12.2017 at 9.57 a.m Ajay J< [email protected]> To: Suman Lal Mukherjee< [email protected]> I received my salary for the month of March (on April 11th). I am yet to receive my April month's salary along with my 12 days in May.
27.12.2017 at 10.40 p.m [email protected]<[email protected]> To: Ajay J< [email protected]> Hi Arun, Could you please take care of this ASAP and help Ajay with the requested details?
Regards, Suman Lal Mukherjee Client partner Tescra Inc. 14 S.C.1679/2018 SCCH23 P:5034700584 Email: [email protected] Sent via mobile device
13. The aforesaid Email conversations make it manifestly clear that the plaintiff was reengaged with client of defendant company viz., Wynn, on a consulting basis from April 6th to May 17th 2017, for which period his salary is yet due to be paid by the defendant. Furthermore in Ex.P8 i.e., the soft copy of the call recordings dated 15.3.2018 between the plaintiff and defendant company (after plaintiff wrote a review against the defendant company in Glassdoor) goes to show that the defendant company itself has acceded the plaintiff's extension with its client Wynn as follows:
Callers: Ajay Jayakumar (AJ) Arun P.T (Tescra) Tescra: And did you get any letter.. After you relieved na, did you get any other letter, you know that for that one month as a consultant? Did you get any?
AJ: Ahh.. the offer letter?
Tescra: Haa.. after that for that one month na AJ: Hmm.. no.. They didn't give anything ..ah..they just called me and told.. ah.. that are you still available to continue, I told yea okay then from tomorrow can you 15 S.C.1679/2018 SCCH23 start working they said and that's it I just started like that.
Tescra: Ohh from the Wynn is it? AJ: Yea.
Tescra: Who had called? Suman na ? AJ : Ah..yea.. I've spoken to Suman. Even Suman knows it, so even he is the person who actually called me and told that Tescra: Hmm.. Theek hai Theek hai (Hindi) AJ: Yea..
Tescra: For that one month you continued is it? AJ: Yea Yea.. from April 6th to May 12th I worked again.
Tescra: Theek hai Theek ha Theek hai Theek hai (Hindi)
14. Basically, no dues certificate is an affirmation by the employer that there are no pending dues by the employee towards it, thereby mandating it to process full and final settlement. The defendant company has at the foot note at Ex.P5 No dues certificate, mentioned that "As per company policy any final dues from the company side will be processed as a part of full and final settlement". If in case there was no dues payable by the company, then the officials of the defendant company would not have ventured into 16 S.C.1679/2018 SCCH23 writing such a note on Ex.P5. This goes to show that the defendant company acknowledged the fact that certain dues are payable by it to the plaintiff. Furthermore it also substantiates that on 9.3.2018, full and final settlement of the plaintiff's dues was yet to be processed by the defendant company. It is pertinent to note that no dues certificate is a first step towards full and final settlement, where an employee has to clear all his dues and surrender the company properties for such full and final settlement.
15. Full and final settlement is usually used by the employers to absolve themselves from all the previous dues and claims of their employees. It is usually actuated in the form of a settlement contract and effectively concludes the employeremployee relationship. Ideally such a settlement ought to serve its purpose and lead to the dissolution of all the preexisting disputes and claims between the employer & employee. That is to say full and final settlement process is done at the time when an employee is leaving the organization, at which time he/she will have to be paid for the last working month, additional earnings if any etc. This procedure has to be carried out by the employer after the employee resigns from their services.
17 S.C.1679/2018SCCH23 It appears that none of these procedures were followed by the defendant nor has it produced any document like Employee data maintained to prove otherwise. Hence an adverse inference is drawn against the defendant company that the full and final settlement of the plaintiff's dues is not settled by it till date. Further the tenor of DW.1 during the course of his cross examination is relevant, wherein he categorically admitted that "If there is any due it will be in writing. It is true to suggest that I have written on the border of Ex.P5 that if there are any dues in the contract period, the same will be verified and updated. I have verified and no dues were payable to the plaintiff from our company. I have communicated this fact to the plaintiff through telephone. I have not communicated through Email. If somebody is working abroad we communicate through Email. Now I see Ex.P4 i.e., the Email conversation between client partner of my company and the plaintiff." If the company had no dues towards the plaintiff, surely an intimation to that effect would have ordinarily been communicated to him. Interestingly no call records are furnished to prove such communication. Another point that merits consideration is that in Ex.P4 there is no Email by the defendant 18 S.C.1679/2018 SCCH23 company vide which it was disseminated to the plaintiff that no dues were payable by it to him. This indicates that the defendant company has taken up a false defence just in order to escape from its liability.
16. Ex.P8soft copy of the call recordings dated.9.3.2018 fortifies the fact that the defendant company, more specifically DW.1 herein, himself acknowledged the receipt of documents and laptop from Plaintiff's brother and also assured to the plaintiff that next week he would be able to issue cheque for Rs.1,48,000/. The relevant portion of Ex.P8 dated 9.3.2018 culled out as follows deserves notice Callers: Ajay Jayakumar (AJ) Arun P.T (Tescra) Tescra: Hello AJ: Hey Arun.. Yea Tescra: Yea, fine. So I got all the details, I mean all the documents and the laptop.
AJ: Okay Tescra: So, probably next week I can issue the cheque, I can coordinate with them.
AJ: Okay Tescra: Then you can come and collect the cheque AJ: Okay Arun. Fine. Yea.. No worries. And the 19 S.C.1679/2018 SCCH23 Tescra: One lakh forty eight thousand (1,48,000/)
17. The defendant company vehemently contended that there was no agreement for the extension of work and the plaintiff does not have any document to show the alleged extension period or nature of work. But mere absence of the extension agreement, would not necessarily mean that the plaintiff did not render his services to the defendant company from 1st April 2017 to May 2017. The services of each and every employee is very important. When that is the case and particularly when the plaintiff had reposed so much confidence that he practically agreed to extend his services even though he had resigned on 29.3.2017, I hold that the defendant's act in denying the salary of the plaintiff for such extended period, more so taking advantage of the absence of a written agreement for the said period is wholly unjustified. The defendant company must be full aware of the proverb that " There are no free lunches in this world", meaning thereby the plaintiff who extended his work from 1.4.2017 to 12.5.2017 agreed to do so on the implied understanding that he would be paid for his services during the said period also.
20 S.C.1679/2018SCCH23
18. The call recording during 14th September 2018 which was after the exchange of legal and reply notices between the parties to the suit, exposes the defendant company's extreme hostility towards the plaintiff. In fact it gives an impression that the defendant company is more concerned about its image than its responsibility. It is ready to issue cheque in respect of the dues, but with a condition precedent that the plaintiff withdraws the reviews uploaded against it by the plaintiff on Glassdoor and forgoes the legal proceedings. The plaintiff is also threatened that his legal approach against the company would not only go into the criminal records but also in all the files maintained by the company. It is noteworthy to state that at the outset itself i.e, soon when the payment due to him was not made by the defendant company, plaintiff did not take recourse to law. He patiently waited to get his hard earned money for almost one year during which period he kept on sending requests to process his full and final settlement. To put it differently, the plaintiff exercised reasonableness and then approached a lawyer for issuance of legal notice. Interestingly in return the defendant company issued reply notice denying its liability and also contended that 21 S.C.1679/2018 SCCH23 the plaintiff had not worked in their company from 6.4.2017 till 5.12.2017. And it is thereafter i.e., on 14.9.2018, the defendant company came forward for settlement that to subject to a condition. It appears that even after that the defendant company failed to remain true towards its words which made the plaintiff to approach this court. This makes it evident that in order to settle scores against the plaintiff with respect to the bad reviews written by him against it, the defendant company is depriving him of his legitimate claim. The significant portion of the call recording dated 14.9.2018 is reproduced as follows:
Tescra: No. Why I'm telling is why you have to go to lawyer. We can just mutually get into this right AJ: So if it was a mutual agreement, I sent you'll 2 notices, you'll should have replied to that long back. Which you'll didn't Tescra: Hmm.
AJ: So which it.. it is only after I involved a lawyer, after I filed a notice that you'll have come back saying that we will do the settlement.
Tescra: No no no.. Not because of the lawyer see, we already have ah.. you know.. have lawyer you know right corporate, every corporate has their own advocate and advisor.22 S.C.1679/2018
SCCH23 Tescra: Think about it and I mean yea.. think about it because we can settle out of that thing you know. Think about it and I can give you in writing so if you put the two review and I'll issue the cheque in a weeks time.
AJ: Ah..I Tescra: That also I will put the date also AJ: Ah..I..ah..ah..I'm..even now I am telling that I.. Tescra: So..so..
AJ: I'm willing to put the review. Ah..I'll if..because I don't know what is ah.. so much problem with this, my review because I have seen more bad reviews in glassdoor.
..............
AJ: Hmm hmm.
Tescra: So.. lets forget about it you know, lets do this you know, talk to your lawyer, I will give you in writing and ah.. let me know so that we can close it, I guess.. so.. okay.. I will give you the date of the cheque also that's why.. see.. even I'm telling you upfront now so you just think about it.
AJ: yea Tescra: Check with your lawyer and then let me know and ah then.. you know.. check with Manoj and we can move forward.
AJ: Okay, or can we do this ah.. Tescra: he wont stop if basically.23 S.C.1679/2018
SCCH23
19. Thus Ex.P8 conversations validate the factum of the pending final settlement by the defendant which was not only acknowledged by it but also agreed to be considered. The defendant company has neither led any evidence to the contrary nor has made any efforts to refute the statements made in Ex.P8.
Furthermore DW.1 himself admitted his mobile number in the cross examination to be 9611690218 (which finds place in the Ex.P8) Be that as it may, pending salary and final settlement is considered as debt as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kesoram Industries & Cotton Mills Ltd V/s Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Calcutta (1966 59 ITR 767). The expression debt was defined therein as follows: "A debt means a sum of money which is now payable or will become payable in future by reason of present obligation debitum in praesenti, solvedum in future. A debt involves an obligation incurred by the debtor and the liability to pay a sum of money in present or future. The liability must, however, be to pay a sum of money i.e, to pay an amount which is determined or determinable in the light of factors, existing on the date when the nature of the liability is to be ascertained." It 24 S.C.1679/2018 SCCH23 can thus be concluded that the dues which are recoverable by the plaintiff from the defendant company are debts. As a corollary the employee whose debts are not paid shall have to be treated as a creditor. Hence unpaid salary of an employee is liable to be recovered from the employer because the employer is obliged to pay the employees salary for the services rendered by the employee. Therefore the plaintiff is entitled to claim Rs.1,48,000/ towards his salary from 1.4.2017 to 12.5.2017 and the defendant company is liable to pay the same. As far as Rs.8,000/ claimed by the plaintiff towards travelling expenses is concerned, clause 6 of Ex.P2 shows that the defendant company had undertaken to pay the compensation applicable to the specific location in case of the plaintiff's transfer to any of its units/departments situated anywhere in India or abroad. Thus the defendant company is under an obligation to pay Rs.8,000/ to the plaintiff towards the travelling expenses incurred by him in reaching the client location of the defendant company at USA. No contra evidence is led by the defendant company to rebut its liability.
20. The plaintiff had to put in a hard fight to be entitled to get his legitimate claim. Obviously he might 25 S.C.1679/2018 SCCH23 have underwent great stress during the said period. Hence he is justified in claiming Rs.10,000/ towards harassment and mental agony. As far as the laptop shipment charges of Rs.15,000/ is concerned, in view of the discontinuation of his services from May 2017, the plaintiff was duty bound to return the laptop as it was provided by the defendant company to carry out its assigned work. Hence he is not entitled to claim any amount in that regard. Added to that the plaintiff has not produced any documents to show the expenses incurred by him towards the shipment of laptop. Legal expenses are claimed by the plaintiff @ Rs.15,000/, the same being reasonable and not superfluous, I am inclined to grant the same.
21. In view of discussion made above, it is clear that the defendant company is due to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,81,000/. The amount in question is clearly payable by the defendant company to the plaintiff on account of salary and allowances etc. In spite of giving an assurance to make the payment, the dues are not paid. The defence put forth by the defendant company is clearly a sham. Therefore this court comes to the conclusion that debt is payable by the defendant company to the plaintiff. In so far as rate 26 S.C.1679/2018 SCCH23 of interest, PW.1 has claimed it @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till realization. A person deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled has a right to be compensated for the deprivation, call it by any name. It may be called interest, compensation or damages. But the future rate of interest @ 18% p.a. claimed by the plaintiff is exorbitant. Further Sec.34 of CPC contemplates that the Court has got discretion to award the interest. Sec.34(1) of CPC mandates that the court shall not grant interest at such rate not exceeding 6% p.a. At the same time court has also the power to award such rate of interest deemed reasonable for the period from the date of the suit till the date of payment. Hence awarding future interest @ 6% p.a. is proper and reasonable. In view of the discussion made above, Plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.1,81,000/ along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Hence, the above issues are answered as 'Partly in Affirmative'
22. ISSUE NO.3: In view of the discussion made in Issues No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following: 27 S.C.1679/2018 SCCH23 :: O R D E R ::
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed with costs.
The Defendant company is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,81,000/ together with future interest @ 6% p.a. The defendant is directed to pay the decreetal amount within one month from the date of this order.
Draw decree accordingly.
[Dictated to the Stenographer on computer, typed by her, revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open Court this the 23rd day of October, 2020.] (ASHWINI M. HATTIHOLI) XXI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BENGALURU :: A N N E X U R E ::
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff/s: PW.1 Arun Jayakumar List of Exhibits marked on behalf of the Plaintiff/s: Ex.P1 GPA Ex.P2 Soft copy of the original offer letter Ex.P3 Soft copy of original pay slips from 28 S.C.1679/2018 SCCH23 May 2016 to March 2017 Ex.P4 Soft copy of Email conversation to Mr.Suman Lal Mukharjee & Mr.Arun & Mr.Manoj Gupta Ex.P5 No due certificate dt.4.3.2018 Ex.P6 Soft copy of legal notice along with reply and acknowlegment card Ex.P7 CD of call recording with Mr.Arun after reply to notice Ex.P.8 Soft copy of mail conversation List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendants: DW.1: Mr.Arun kumar List of Exhibits marked on behalf of the Defendant/s: NIL (ASHWINI M. HATTIHOLI) XXI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE BENGALURU