Delhi District Court
Manu Sharma vs Mahle Filter Systems (India) Ltd on 25 September, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. CHANDER JIT SINGH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-05, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Suit No. : CS DJ 205492/2016
CNR No. : DLST01-000017-2012
Suit registered on : 08.08.2012
Arguments concluded on : 26.08.2023
Pronouncement on : 25.09.2023
IN THE MATTER OF :
Mr. Manu Sharma
S/o Sh. Om Prakash Sharma
R/o 2161, Sector-15, Panchkula,
Haryana.
..................PLAINTIFF
Versus
1. Mahle Filter Systems (India) Limited
38th Milestone, National Highway
8, Behrampur Road, Khandsa
Gurgaon-122001 (Hr.)
Having its Regd. Office at:
1, Shri Aurobindo Marg,
New Delhi-110016
2. Mr. Ramneek Jain (COO)
Mahle Filter Systems (India) Limited
38th Milestone, National Highway 8,
Behrampur Road, Khandsa
Gurgaon-122001 (Hr.)
Having its Regd. Office at:
1, Shri Aurobindo Marg,
New Delhi-110016
CS DJ 5492/16
MANU SHARMA Vs. MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS (INDIA) LTD
(Chander Jit Singh)
ADJ-05, South Saket, New Delhi
Page no. 1 of 22
3. Mr. Joerg Rueckaurf
C/o Mahle Filter Systems (India) Limited
38th Milestone, National Highway 8,
Behrampur Road, Khandsa
Gurgaon-122001 (Hr.)
Having its Regd. Office at:
1, Shri Aurobindo Marg,
New Delhi-110016
.....................DEFENDANTS
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall dispose of present suit seeking declaration, mandatory injunction and for recovery of liquidated damages of Rs.8,00,000/-.
PLAINT:-
In brief, plaintiff's case is that he was appointed as Assistant Manager with office of defendant No.4 (As per memo of parties, there are three defendants only. That vide order dated 29.05.2019 directions were issued to file amended memo of parties but it seems that amended memo of parties has not filed.) vide appointment letter dated 27.10.2006 manifesting the terms and conditions of appointment. That there was a probation period of six months where after plaintiff continued to be under employment of defendant No.1 till his services were illegally and wrongfully terminated vide letter dated 15.6.2012 issued by defendant No. 2. That defendants No.1 to 3 have their registered office in Delhi and the defendant No.4 (As per memo of parties, there are three defendants only. That vide order dated 29.05.2019 CS DJ 5492/16 MANU SHARMA Vs. MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS (INDIA) LTD (Chander Jit Singh) ADJ-05, South Saket, New Delhi Page no. 2 of 22 directions were issued to file amended memo of parties but it seems that amended memo of parties has not filed.) is also a group company of defendant No.1 and all the defendants have their registered office at Delhi. That in terms of appointment letter, there is a termination clause by which after confirmation of an employee viz. Plaintiff, termination could be subject to one month's notice in writing on either side or salary in lieu of notice period.
1.1 It is further contended that act of termination not only is patently, wrong and illegal but also the same is contrary to the terms of the appointment letter as the same carried certain insinuations, which were defamatory to the conduct of plaintiff.
That prior to issuance of termination letter, there has been exchange of some e-mails between the parties which included a letter written by defendant No. 3. That while the defendant No.3, who was taken into confidence in regard to some insinuations made against plaintiff by some ill-motivated persons and plaintiff was not made ever aware of nor was even given any charge sheet or any opportunity of being heard to explain his conduct. That an email dated 5.6.2012 was sent by defendant No.3 to plaintiff culminating into issuance of the letter dated 15.6.2012 by defendant No.2 which patently speaks the gross malafide on the part of defendant No.1. That while plaintiff was made to understand to go out of the country to Germany at another unit of defendant No.1 for two years and for which he carried necessary preparation including taking out his only child from CS DJ 5492/16 MANU SHARMA Vs. MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS (INDIA) LTD (Chander Jit Singh) ADJ-05, South Saket, New Delhi Page no. 3 of 22 school, selling off his car etc in order to wind up his and his family stay in India. That then suddenly, letter dated 15.6.2012 came like a bolt from the blue and shattered not only the planned official stay for work of plaintiff with his family but also put him on road in a single day. That such act on the part of defendant No.1 has been conveyed through defendant No.2. That a grave prejudice, unlimited and unexplained extent of harassment and injury has been caused to plaintiff alongwith his family because of sudden and wrongful act on the part of the defendant No.2 which is liable to be declared illegal, null and void. That plaintiff is entitled to be compensated financially and otherwise for the wrong and injury caused to plaintiff and his family. That plaintiff is liable to reinstated with continuity of service with full back wages/salary as plaintiff has worked always for the interest and welfare of the defendant No.1. That by way of legal notice, plaintiff still gave the defendants a chance to recall the order of termination dated 15.6.2012 issued by defendant No.2. That order of termination on the part of the defendants is illegal, wrong, inoperative, null and void ab-initio as the same is contrary to the terms of the appointment letter. Hence, the present suit.
WRITTEN STATEMENT:
2. On notice, appearance was entered and separate written statements have been filed on behalf of defendants. It is contended by defendant that the court fee as per the Court Fees has not been paid by the plaintiff and suit is liable to be CS DJ 5492/16 MANU SHARMA Vs. MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS (INDIA) LTD (Chander Jit Singh) ADJ-05, South Saket, New Delhi Page no. 4 of 22 dismissed. That the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction seeking to declare the termination order to be illegal etc and seeking the consequential relief of mandatory injunction to direct an employer to take back the plaintiff employee on duty etc amounts to a suit for specific enforcement of the contract of employment and thus, as such suit is not maintainable by virtue of section 14 (1) of the Specific Relief Act. That defendant No.2 and 3 are not necessary or proper parties to the suit and it is the defendant No.1 alone which is a legal entity and had been the employer of the plaintiff. That defendant No.1 has its Head Office in Gurgaon (Harayana) and it is a Company registered under the Companies Act and no part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi. That, thus, this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try this suit and suit is liable to be dismissed summarily on this account itself. Other contentions made by plaintiff are also denied submitting that the suit is not maintainable and should be dismissed with cost.
REPLICATION:-
3. Replication was also filed on behalf of plaintiff denying the contents of defendants made in their written statements.
ISSUES FRAMED:-
4. After completion of pleadings, issues were framed vide order dated 20.2.2015 which are as under:-
CS DJ 5492/16MANU SHARMA Vs. MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS (INDIA) LTD (Chander Jit Singh) ADJ-05, South Saket, New Delhi Page no. 5 of 22
(a). Whether the suit is not maintainable by virtue of section 14 (1) of the Specific Relief Act, as alleged in preliminary objection No.2 of WS filed by defendant? OPD
(b). Whether the suit is bad for mis-joionder of necessary parties, if so its effect? OPD
(c). Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit, as alleged in preliminary objection No.4 of WS filed by defendant? OP (Parties).
(d). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration, as claimed for? OPP
(e) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction, as claimed for? OPP
(f). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of liquidated damages, as claimed for? OPP
(g). Relief EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF:-
5. In order to prove his case, plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 and proved his evidentiary affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He reiterated the facts and submissions as mentioned in his plaint. He relied upon the documents i.e.
(i) Copy of appointment letter dated 27.10.2006 Ex. P1,
(ii) Original appraisal/bonus letter dated 22.2.2008 and 05.05.2008 Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-3, CS DJ 5492/16 MANU SHARMA Vs. MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS (INDIA) LTD (Chander Jit Singh) ADJ-05, South Saket, New Delhi Page no. 6 of 22
(iii) Original letter dated 13.6.2008 and 30.8.2010 Ex. P-4 and Ex. P-5,
(iv) Original appreciation letter dated 16.8.2011 Ex. P-6, appraisal letter dated 01.5.2012 is Ex. P-7,
(v) Original letter dated 05.4.2012 alongwith salary slipEx.P8,
vi) original appreciation letter dated 13.4.2012 Ex. P-9,
vii) Original promotional letter dated 05.4.2012 Ex. P-10,
viii) Letter dated 18.5.2010 Ex. P-11,
ix) Copy of termination letter dated 15.6.2012 Ex. P-12,
x) Original letter dated 28.3.2012 written by defendant to German Embassy Ex. P-13,
xi) Copy of legal notice dated 26.6.2012 Ex. P-14 alongwith postal receipts and reply to the legal notice dated 11.7.2012 Ex. P-15.
xii) He also relied upon document such as copy of email dated 04.6.2012 Ex. PW1/1 (collectively),
xiii) Original receipt/letter dated 16.5.2012 Ex. PW1/2, copy of visa of plaintiff, his wife and son Ex. PW1/3.
5.1 The witness has also tendered his evidence by way of additional evidentiary affidavit which is proved by him as Ex. PW1/B. He also relied upon the documents as such:-
1) Computer generated copy of air ticket dated 03.5.2012 as Ex. PW1/4,
2) Original letter dated 26.4.2012 is Ex. PW1/5, CS DJ 5492/16 MANU SHARMA Vs. MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS (INDIA) LTD (Chander Jit Singh) ADJ-05, South Saket, New Delhi Page no. 7 of 22
3) Computer generated copy of email dated 12.01.2012 is Ex. PW1/6,
4) Copy of letter dated 02.5.2007 is mark A,
5) Copy of letter dated 09.3.2012 is mark B,
6) Copy of letter dated 27.3.2012 is mark C,
7) Copy of letter dated 06.3.2012 is mark D,
8) Copy of letter dated 07.3.2012 is mark E,
9) Copy of letter dated 15.5.2009 issued by the defendant is mark F and
10) Certificate under section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW1/7 in respect of document Ex. PW1/1.
5.2. The witness was duly cross examined on behalf of defendant and during cross examination, the witness stated that he had joined the services of defendant No.1 company on 04.10.2006 but he did not remember when his interview took place with defendant No.1. That the date of the appointment letter given to him was 27.10.2006. He did not remember when he signed the appointment letter as acceptance of employment. That before joining defendant No.1, he briefly worked for Whirlpool Company for about 8 to 9 months. Witness further stated that his appointment letter dated 27.10.2006 was issued by Purolater India Ltd to him. The witness further stated that during his working with defendant No.1, his attendance used to be recorded by way of entering in the attendance register at the factory gate, and sometimes by way of biometric finger machine installed at the factory gate and later attendance was recorded by CS DJ 5492/16 MANU SHARMA Vs. MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS (INDIA) LTD (Chander Jit Singh) ADJ-05, South Saket, New Delhi Page no. 8 of 22 way of electronics means by logging into the system (email). He also stated that he did not know the purchase process because he was not in purchase department. He further stated that appreciation letters were given to him personally at the factory and other time at the registered office of the company. He deposed that process of attendance was under the HR & Admin department, so he cannot explain how and where his attendance was marked. He testified that rules and Regulations as explicitly explained in writing to him and acknowledged by him in writing are know to him. He also stated that he did not know remember any ethics policy as enforced during his tenure with the defendant No.1 company. He stated that approximately Rs. 1,00,000/- per month was his salary at the time of his termination from services.
5.3 PW-1 has denied that company had given him a laptop in May 2011. PW-1 also denied that a housing loan of Rs. 8,00,000/- was sanctioned and paid to him by the defendant No.1 company on 12.4.2012. He also stated that there was a credit of Rs. 8,00,000/- but he did not remember the exact date of this transaction. He further deposed that as far as he remember he got the Germany assignment from Mahle Germany through his local office. He stated that as far as he remembered, he disposed off the household items to 2 to 3 people and he disposed off some of his household items to Baldev Raj Sharma prior to his scheduled placement to Germany. He further stated that he did not receive any copy of allegations or complaint against him CS DJ 5492/16 MANU SHARMA Vs. MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS (INDIA) LTD (Chander Jit Singh) ADJ-05, South Saket, New Delhi Page no. 9 of 22 from defendant No.1. He also testified that he had communication with defendant No.3 to ask for the copy of information about the pseudonymous allegations put against him which was used to delay his departure to Germany from Indian Office to which defendant No. 3 responded by email. He further stated that since he was residing out of the company guest house prior to his departure to Germany, termination letter was sent to his permanent address. He stated that he did not remember when he received the termination letter in his hand nor did he remember whether or not he had written any email to defendant No.3 after receiving the termination letter as his mental state was not good in good shape due to the wrongful termination. No other witness was examined.
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE:-
6. Sh. Durgesh Babbar was examined as DW-1 and filed his evidentiary affidavit which is proved by him as Ex. DW1/A on behalf of defendant and he also deposed on the same lines as stated on behalf of defendant in written statement. He relied upon the various documents which are as under:-
a) Certified true copy of Board Resolution dated 12.3.2020 is Ex. DW1/1.
b) Certified true copy of Board Resolution dated 11.12.2008 is Ex. DW1/2.
c) Copy of email for requesting housing loan of Rs. 8,00,000/-
dated 04.04.2012 is Ex. DW1/3.
CS DJ 5492/16MANU SHARMA Vs. MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS (INDIA) LTD (Chander Jit Singh) ADJ-05, South Saket, New Delhi Page no. 10 of 22
d) Printout copy of RTGS transaction slip for Rs. 8,00,000/- dated 12.4.2012 is Ex. DW1/4.
e) Copy of original bill for Rs. 1,23,900/- dated 04.5.2011 is Ex. DW/15.
f) Printout of email dated 16.5.2012 requesting to carry the laptop is Ex. DW1/6.
g) Certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act is Ex. DW1/7. H) Copy of project Runaway dated 05.6.2012 is Ex. DW1/8.
6.1. The witness was duly cross examined on behalf of plaintiff and during cross examination, he stated that all the documents referred in the affidavit were gone through by him before signing the affidavit. He stated that he has not mentioned his date of joining in the affidavit. He testified that as far as he remembered the termination letter was issued to plaintiff may be in 2005-06. He denied that there was no clause in appointment letter to terminate the contract dated 27.10.2006. He further stated that he joined the defendant company in January 2020. he also stated that services of plaintiff were terminated based on the report given by KPMG Ex. DW1/8 at the relevant time. The witness further/again said that it was not termination suggested by KPMG but it was about pecuniary transaction conducted by the plaintiff thereby suggesting for probable financial transaction between Manu Sharma and some vendors of the company. He stated that no termination was suggested by KPMG. He could not tell if the original of the report will carry the signature or stamp of the company KPMG. He also stated that services of plaintiff CS DJ 5492/16 MANU SHARMA Vs. MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS (INDIA) LTD (Chander Jit Singh) ADJ-05, South Saket, New Delhi Page no. 11 of 22 have been terminated based on Clause 6 of the Appointment letter Ex. P-1 related to last lines of para 6. He stated that rules and regulations which have been mentioned in this clause are the Code of Conduct of the defendant company. DW-1 could not say that if the termination letter Ex. P-12, mentions that the services of the plaintiff were terminated based on Code of Conduct.
6.2 The witness further could not tell that based on the Clause 5 of the Appointment Letter of the plaintiff which stipulates a minimum period of one month notice on either side before termination whether this clause was complied with by the defendants. He also stated that the document Ex. P-12 in which in the very first line it is mentioned that there is a reasonable evidence of apprehension of the plaintiff being involved in unethical practices seems to him based on facts. He deposed that based on the Ex. DW1/8, services of plaintiff were terminated. The witness further stated that the termination of the plaintiff was based on appointment letter contents and based on rules and regulations of the defendant company. He could not say if at the time of issuance of the termination letter, appointment of the plaintiff was already done in Germany by sister concern of defendant company, namely, Mahle Filtersysteme GmbH. DW-1 was not aware in regard to the appointment of the plaintiff by the aforesaid sister concern of the defendant for which period it is related to. DW-1 was not aware if the transfer of the plaintiff to the sister concern was approved by the defendant company and which was a period of two years. He denied that any loan was not CS DJ 5492/16 MANU SHARMA Vs. MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS (INDIA) LTD (Chander Jit Singh) ADJ-05, South Saket, New Delhi Page no. 12 of 22 taken by the plaintiff from the defendant company. He could not say the vehicle of the plaintiff which was sold out by the plaintiff to his known person. He could not tell if any inquiry in respect of laptop, alleged loan amount was conducted by the defendant prior to the termination of the plaintiff. He stated that investigation was carried out KPMG to enquire whether plaintiff was having pecuniary/financial transaction with the supplier of the defendant company. He stated that Board of Resolution Ex. DW1/1 is the true copy of the extracts of the Minutes of the Board Meeting. He could not say that the laptop, which was given to the plaintiff by the defendant company, has lost its value as in terms of the bill. He also stated that description mentioned in the invoice Ex. DW1/5 relates to the same laptop which was given to the plaintiff. He denied that no laptop was given to the plaintiff. No other witness was examined.
7. I have heard both the parties at length and gone through the record carefully. Written arguments have also been filed on behalf of both the parties. My issue-wise findings are as follows:-
ISSUE No.:- F & D Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of liquidated damages and whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as claimed for.CS DJ 5492/16
MANU SHARMA Vs. MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS (INDIA) LTD (Chander Jit Singh) ADJ-05, South Saket, New Delhi Page no. 13 of 22
8. Both these issues are taken together as they are interconnected and have bearing upon each other. The declaration sought is that the impugned letter/order dated 15.6.2012 is illegal, unlawful, unjust and void ab-initio and consequently liquidated damages to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/- on account of wrong and injury having been caused to the plaintiff and his family members have been claimed. The suit of plaintiff is based on the premise that the impugned letter/order terminating plaintiff from the services of defendant No.1 is illegal and ab- initio. On behalf of defendant, it has been argued and contended that plaintiff was involved in an unethical practice by being involved in financial transaction with the vendors and due to this reason, services of plaintiff were terminated.
9. Both the plaintiff and defendant have examined one witness each to prove their claim. In respect of plaintiff having unethical and unapproved financial transaction. Reliance is placed upon an interim report dated 5.6.2012 which is exhibited as Ex. DW1/8. This report states that the document contains specific input based on conversations conducted with Manu Sharma, Baldev Raj Sharma and Jai Kishan. Baldev Raj Sharma is Proprietor, Sharma Engineering. Jai Kishan is Proprietor, Rohit Steel Fabricators. Both Baldev Raj Sharma and Manu Sharma have admitted to have entered into a financial transaction to purchase certain house hold items and a bullet motorcycle from Manu. Baldev Raj Sharma has stated that he had deposited about Rs. 1.2 Lakh in bank account which is in the name of Ms. Vipula CS DJ 5492/16 MANU SHARMA Vs. MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS (INDIA) LTD (Chander Jit Singh) ADJ-05, South Saket, New Delhi Page no. 14 of 22 who is Manu's wife. Besides this document, no other document has placed on record to show the alleged financial transaction between plaintiff and vendors of defendant company. These allegations have been reiterated by DW-1 in his affidavit of evidence. The document which is appointment letter of plaintiff is Ex. P-1. The said document was filed on behalf of plaintiff and was admitted by defendant. One of the condition at point No. 5 contained in Ex. P-1 is under the heading, Notice period. It stipulates that 'after confirmation your employment is terminable subject to one month's notice in writing on either side or salary in lieu of notice'. It is also one of the condition that the plaintiff shall abide by rules and regulations of company enforced by time to time. At point No. 6 under heading duties and responsibilities, among the duties, it is one of the duty of employee that employee will not take up any direct/indirect business or work whether honorary or remuneratory except will the written consent of the company.
10. On behalf of plaintiff, it is argued that the defendant company has terminated the services of plaintiff illegally. It is contended that once plaintiff was in the service of the company at Germany, defendant does not have any authority to dismiss him. In this regard, reliance is placed upon mark B wherein it is written that current employment Agreement between you and Mahle Filtersysteme GmbH and that you are released from your duties on account of your employment with Mahle Filter Systems India, Gurgaon, in the course of your job at Mahle CS DJ 5492/16 MANU SHARMA Vs. MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS (INDIA) LTD (Chander Jit Singh) ADJ-05, South Saket, New Delhi Page no. 15 of 22 Filtersysteme GmbH, Stuttgart. The said document mark B contains conditions regarding termination of employment at point 15 wherein it is provided that the notice periods established in the collective agreement shall apply. The notice period for both the parties is two months to the end of a month. The notice period the employer is required to give is determined by the length of service. This assignment is to be effective from 01.4.2012 for a period of two years. Perusal of this document shows that this document is in the nature of an offer of appointment as it does not contain signature of plaintiff. The employment with Mahle Filtersysteme (Germany) was started from 1.4.2012 but apparently plaintiff did not go there and this aspect is completely untouched by both plaintiff and defendant. Further, plaintiff has claimed that defendant No.4 (As per memo of parties, there are three defendants only. That vide order dated 29.05.2019 directions were issued to file amended memo of parties but it seems that amemded memo of parties has not filed) ceases to be his employer once he was employed at plant located in Germany. However, plaintiff has not joined the services at Germany. The letter in question was issued in the month of June 2012, whereas it is claimed by plaintiff that he was to join services at Germany on 01.4.2012. No document or material is placed on record by plaintiff to show that he joined services at Germany. It is also not the case of plaintiff that he had joined his job at the plant/office at Germany. It is also not the case of plaintiff that he was not paid salary as well as other dues by the erstwhile employer. There are no pleadings or evidence to show that salary is not paid to CS DJ 5492/16 MANU SHARMA Vs. MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS (INDIA) LTD (Chander Jit Singh) ADJ-05, South Saket, New Delhi Page no. 16 of 22 plaintiff from 01.4.2022 till the date letter in question was issued. It, thus, implies that he continues to be an employee of defendant No.1. Ex. P-1 is very clear in respect of the notice period in this regard. The court is enlightened by the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as G.E. Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd Vs Shri Tarun Bhargava 2012 SCC Online Del 1984: (2012)190 DLT 185 where it was observed:-
"10. Whatever be the language of the prayer clauses of the plaint, and whatever be the ground of cause of action pleaded, the sum and substance of the cause of action in the plaint is for re-employment and continuation of employment with service benefits till the age of 60 years. In effect, therefore there is sought specific performance of the contractual services and which is impermissible in law. I may note that the contracts of personal service are only enforceable where the employer is a Government company or an arm of the State as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India. As per Section 14(1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act,1963, a contract for personal service cannot be enforced.
11. In fact, the subject suit was also barred by Section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which provides that the contract which is in its nature determinable, cannot be specifically enforced. I have referred to the fact that the contract was determinable by a one month‟s notice as per clause 7 of the terms and conditions of the letter dated 21.4.1998 and therefore the contract which was determinable by one month‟s notice cannot be specifically enforced. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly i.e. if there cannot be specific performance of the contract, there cannot be declaration and injunction to continue such a service contract. Section 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that injunction will not be granted to prevent breach of the CS DJ 5492/16 MANU SHARMA Vs. MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS (INDIA) LTD (Chander Jit Singh) ADJ-05, South Saket, New Delhi Page no. 17 of 22 contract, performance of which could not be specifically enforced.
12. Therefore, looking at the matter from the point of view of the contract of personal service not being enforceable under Section 14(1) (b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the contract being determinable in nature and hence cannot be enforced as per Section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 or that injunction could not be granted to prevent breach of a contract which cannot be specifically enforced, the suit was clearly barred and not maintainable. The judgment of the trial Court does not refer to the binding provisions of Section 14(1)(b), (c) and 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. To complete the discussion on this aspect, I would once again refer to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Binny Ltd. (supra) and which specifically provides that in private contracts i.e. in strict contractual matters, there does not arise the issue of applicability of Administrative Law principles"
Further, in the case titled as Naresh Kumar Vs Shri Hiroshi Maniwa & Ors CS (OS) No. 393/2010 where it was observed:-
"In the case of GE Capital Transportation Financial (supra), I have referred to the earlier judgment in the case of Shri Satya Narain Garg (supra), and also the fact that contracts which are determinable in nature cannot be specifically enforced as per Section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. I have also referred to the fact that if the contract of employment provides for one month's notice. then, the maximum entitlement of damages of an employee who alleges illegal termination is one month's pay."CS DJ 5492/16
MANU SHARMA Vs. MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS (INDIA) LTD (Chander Jit Singh) ADJ-05, South Saket, New Delhi Page no. 18 of 22 11 Above noted settled principles of law laid down in this regard are squarely applicable to the present case. Admittedly, defendant No.1 is a private company. Further, admittedly, appointment letter i.e. contract between the parties contains a clause regarding termination of service by either party. It implies that the contract is determinable be nature as either of parties could put an end to it by giving one month notice. Since, there exists a contract between the parties, both the parties shall be governed by contract and not beyond that. The condition of notice, period also provide for salary in lieu of notice. Ex. P-12 which is letter of termination states that there is termination of service with immediate effect. The only reason that the services were terminated with immediate effect and one month salary in lieu thereof was not given to plaintiff, does not make the termination illegal. This termination with immediate effect is in violation of the covenant contract which entitle the plaintiff to receive salary of one month and not beyond. Section 73 of Indian Contract Act stipulates that:-
"When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it.
Such compensation is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach."CS DJ 5492/16
MANU SHARMA Vs. MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS (INDIA) LTD (Chander Jit Singh) ADJ-05, South Saket, New Delhi Page no. 19 of 22 In the present matter also, once it is established that there has been a breach of contract, the aggrieved is entitled to general damages. The damage/ injury caused by breach of contract is that Plaintiff has been forced in to litigation for seeking redressal of the violation of contract. In other words, once, it is the established that there is violation of contractual conditions, it implies that the plaintiff has been put to this litigation by the conduct of defendant company which has emerged from violation of contractual condition. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to damages as well in view of the violation of contractual obligations.
Hence, in view of above discussion, plaintiff is entitled to salary which he was drawing on 15.6.2012 for the period of one month and damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. Both these issues are disposed off accordingly.
ISSUE NO. C Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit, as alleged in preliminary objection No.4 of WS filed by defendant?
12. As far as issue No. C is concerned, it is contended on behalf of plaintiff that this court does have territorial jurisdiction as the perusal of Ex. P-1 shows that the registered office of the defendant company is at Shri Arbindo Marg, New Delhi. The concerned document i.e. Ex. P-1 is an admitted document. Therefore, in view of the admission of documents, it is held that CS DJ 5492/16 MANU SHARMA Vs. MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS (INDIA) LTD (Chander Jit Singh) ADJ-05, South Saket, New Delhi Page no. 20 of 22 plaintiff could show that suit lies within the jurisdiction of this court. Hence, this issues is decided in favour of plaintiff and against defendant.
ISSUE NO. B:-
Whether the suit is bad for mis-joionder of necessary parties, if so its effect? OPD
13. The onus of proving of this issue is upon the defendant but defendant has not produced any evidence to discharge the onus to prove this issue. Hence, accordingly, this issue also goes in favour of plaintiff and against defendant.
ISSUE No. E:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction, as claimed for? OPP
14. The mandatory injunction was sought by plaintiff seeking directions to defendant to take plaintiff back in the employment on the same scale on pay status etc. As noted above, the Hon'ble High Court has specifically held that in cases of private employment, employment is governed by the contract and employee cannot claim re-employment or further employment only on the basis of violation of contractual obligations. That the employment between private company and its employee cannot be equated with employment with the State. In the employment with state, certain statutory protections and safe guards are extended to employees. However, in case of employment with CS DJ 5492/16 MANU SHARMA Vs. MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS (INDIA) LTD (Chander Jit Singh) ADJ-05, South Saket, New Delhi Page no. 21 of 22 private company, it is governed by Contract between the parties as both are private legal entities who entered into contract voluntarily. Thus, if the contract does not contain contract regarding re-employment, in case of wrong termination by employer, same cannot be granted to the employees. Thus, in view of above discussion, this issue is decided against plaintiff and in favour of defendant.
RELIEF :-
15. In view of the findings of the issues framed in this case, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby partially decreed directing defendant to pay one month salary of plaintiff which he was drawing on 15.6.2012 and Rs. 50,000/- towards the damages. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court.
Dated 25.09.2023 CHANDER JIT SINGH ADJ-05, SOUTH SAKET COURTS NEW DELHI/25.09.2023 This judgment contains 22 pages. Each page have been checked and signed by me.
CS DJ 5492/16MANU SHARMA Vs. MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS (INDIA) LTD (Chander Jit Singh) ADJ-05, South Saket, New Delhi Page no. 22 of 22