Delhi District Court
Narender Kumar vs M/S Budhraja Mining And Construction ... on 29 January, 2026
DLST010086642023
In the Court of Sh. Munish Bansal,
District Judge-03 (South District),
Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi.
CS No.: 506/2023
In the matter of :-
Sh. Narender Kumar,
S/o Lt. Jagbir Singh,
R/O B-88/11, Ganga Vihar,
New Delhi-110094. ....Plaintiff
Versus
M/S Budhraja Mining & Construction Ltd.
Through Its Director
Office At:
Construction House, Jharpada Cuttack Road,
Bhubneshwar, Orissa-751006.
Also At:-
Regd.Off.:- Local Shopping Centre,
Madangiri, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi-110062.
...Defendant
CS DJ No. 506/2023 page no. 1 to 23
Date of institution : 11.09.2023
Arguments heard on : 28.01.2026
Date of decision : 29.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking recovery of Rs. 5,24,923/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest against the Defendants.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE:
2. Facts as epitomized in the plaint are that the plaintiff was working with the defendant organization vide appointment letter dated 10.09.2020 since 14.09.2020 with the gross total salary of Rs. 1,05,000/- per month and was posted at NTPC, Dadri as Project Manager at project site office situated at Dadri, UP and worked with the defendant organization till 03.06.2022 (excluding notice period).
2.1 The plaintiff vide email letter dated 03.06.2022 resigned from the service of the defendant company due to non payment of his dues/ salary resulting which he was facing financial hardship CS DJ No. 506/2023 page no. 2 to 23 and in resignation letter dated 03.06.2022, he explained to the defendant company that he is ready to serve the company for one month notice period as mandated by company law and accordingly, he worked with the defendant organization after resignation i.e. from 03.06.2022 to 02.07.2022. Defendant company did not make the payment to the plaintiff for his arrears of salary and other dues even after repeated requests made by the plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant company has also deducted TDS amount for the month of January 2022, April 2022 & May 2022 from the salary of the plaintiff but has not deposited the said TDS amount with the Income Tax department as it is not shown in the Form 26AS and hence, defendant is also liable to deposit the same amount with the Income Tax Department.
2.2 It is further stated that the defendant has illegally and unlawfully withheld the outstanding dues of the plaintiff as such the plaintiff is entitled to recover the due salary amount/ leave encashment/ bonus amount from the defendant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of due till its realization. The present suit is being filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 5,24,923/- (Rs. Five Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Three Rupees Only). The details of the arrears of salary and other dues outstanding against the defendant company are as CS DJ No. 506/2023 page no. 3 to 23 follows:-
a. Unpaid salary for the month of February 2022 Rs. 1,05,000/-. b. 12 days unpaid salary from 19.05.2022 to 31.05.2022 i.e. Rs. 42,000/-.
c. 3 days salary in the month of June 2022 i.e. Rs. 12,115/- and one month notice period salary i.e. from 31st June to 2nd July Rs. 1,05,000/-.
d. Bonus amount for the period of September 2020 to June 2022 (22 months @ 5250/- Rupee per month) i.e. Rs. 1,15,500/-. e. Paid leave amount for 40 days @ Rs. 2307/- per day which is Rs. 92,280/-.
f. Interest @ 12% per annum from July 2022 till 31 June 2023 of Rs. 53,028/-.
g. Total due/recover amount of Rs. 5,24,923/-.
2.3 It is further averred that the plaintiff issued a legal demand notice dated 24.08.2022 to the defendant on their both address through speed post posted on 24-08-2022 through his counsel and same was duly been served upon the defendant. Despite service of notice, the defendant neither complied with the legal demand notice nor sent any reply till date.
CS DJ No. 506/2023 page no. 4 to 23 2.4 It is finally prayed that the defendant is liable to pay the
plaintiff a sum of Rs. 5,24,923/- (Rupees Five Lacs Twenty four Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Three Only) alongwith pendente-lite and future interest. Hence, this suit.
DEFENDANT'S CASE:
3. In his Written Statement, defendant has averred that the plaintiff was employed for a position of Project Manager at NTPC Dadri Project site vide appointment letter dated 10.09.2020. The said Letter of Appointment contains the terms and conditions of employment.
Point No. 4 clearly mentions that:-
"you will be on a probation period for 6 month and would be confirmed of your services thereafter subject to your performance being found satisfactory by the Management"
Point No. 6 clearly mentions that:-
"upon confirmation, as you would be occupying an important position in the organisation, you are bound to hold the position for at least 2 financial years. Failing to which you would be liable for disciplinary actions and other consequences. You shall indemnify CS DJ No. 506/2023 page no. 5 to 23 the organisation and its affiliation from any loss or damage arising from breach of this undertaking. After confirmation, the appointment may be terminated by employer or the other party by giving 3(three) months notice or 3 months salary to employer in lieu of the notice period."
3.1 It is further stated that the plaintiff was holding an important position of Project Manager and being on that position, plaintiff made the defendant company to suffer a huge loss by allowing the dewatering pump in the month of July, August and September, 2021 which was a heavy rainwater season and there was no requirement for dewatering in respect of the said site. Not only this, he also signed the bill(s) raised by the third party who was engaged in service of dewatering by pumps. When this careless and negligent act of the plaintiff came into the knowledge of defendant company, enquiry was constituted against the plaintiff and after which, plaintiff was suspended from his job by the director of the defendant company through telephone means. The plaintiff with malafide intention left the defendant company within the compulsory period of service and to extort money, has filed the false and frivolous case against the defendant. On the basis of these submissions, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.
CS DJ No. 506/2023 page no. 6 to 23 REPLICATION:
4. The Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement thereby denying all the contents of the written statement and reiterating and reaffirming the pleadings made in the plaint. Apart from the averments made in the plaint, plaintiff through the said replication has also averred that it was in the knowledge of the defendant that the de-watering pump was working in the month of July, August and September 2021 and as per the order of defendant, the plaintiff has no role to allow the de-watering pump in the said period and hence, no loss was incurred. It is also submitted that there were absolutely no instructions from the defendant to de-hire the watering pump from the project site. It is also submitted that with the consent and knowledge of the defendant, the plaintiff signed the concerned bill as he was holding the post of project manager and the work was done by the COSMOS ENTERPRISES. It is denied that the when careless and negligent act of the plaintiff came into the knowledge of organization, an enquiry has been constituted against the plaintiff and after which, the plaintiff has been suspended from his job by the director of the defendant company through telephone means. It is also submitted that the plaintiff has never been suspended by the directors at any point of CS DJ No. 506/2023 page no. 7 to 23 time for abovesaid careless and negligent act and the defendant has never reverted to any of the mails, notices and resignation letter even during the one month of notice period. It is submitted that the plaintiff was compelled to resign from the services due to non- payment of his due salary and due to this, the plaintiff was facing financial hardships and the plaintiff has explained the same in the resignation letter dated 03.06.2022 and that he is ready to serve the one month notice period as mandated by the company law and accordingly, he worked with the defendant company after resignation i.e. from 03.06.2022 till 02.07.2022. Hence, plaintiff has followed and complied with the policy of the company as mandated by the company law.
ISSUES:
5. Upon completion of pleadings, following issues were framed vide order dated 24.09.2024:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.
5,24,923/- from the defendant, as prayed for? OPP
2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, whether plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite and future interest, as prayed for? If yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP CS DJ No. 506/2023 page no. 8 to 23
3. Relief.
Thereafter, matter was fixed for Plaintiff's evidence.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE:
6. To prove his case, the Plaintiff has examined himself as PW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A whereby he placed reliance upon certain documents viz.
S. No. Document Exhibited/
Marked as
1. Letter of appointment dated 10.09.2020 Ex. PW1/1 issued by defendant company to the deponent
2. Copy of resignation letter sent by Ex. PW1/2 deponent to defendant through email dated 03.06.2022
3. Copy of email letter dated 20.06.2022 Ex. PW-1/3 sent by deponent to defendant company regarding release of outstanding dues
4. Copy of email dated 11.07.2022 sent by Ex. PW1/4 deponent to the defendant company regarding reminder of outstanding dues
5. Copy of email dated 07.08.2022 sent by Ex. PW1/5 deponent to defendant company regarding reminder of outstanding dues CS DJ No. 506/2023 page no. 9 to 23
6. Internet downloaded copy of bank Ex. PW1/6 statement of deponent for the period starting from 01.09.2020 to 30.12.2022
7. Copy of bank statement of deponent for Ex. PW1/7 the period starting from 06.01.2022 to 31.12.2022
8. Copy of legal demand notice dated Ex. PW1/8 24.08.2022
9. Copy of certificate under Section 65B Ex. PW1/9 Indian Evidence Act PW-1 was cross examined by counsel for the defendant.
6.1 No other witness on behalf of the plaintiff was examined. Thereafter, on the basis of statement of plaintiff, PE was closed on 15.07.2025.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE:
7. On behalf of defendant, Sh. Purshottam Budhraja examined himself as DW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A whereby he placed reliance upon certain documents viz.
CS DJ No. 506/2023 page no. 10 to 23 Sr. No. Documents Exhibited as 1 Authority Letter Ex. DW-1/1 (objected by counsel for
dated 20.11.2025 the plaintiff as Ex DW-1/1 mentioned in the affidavit of evidence as 20.11.2023, however, it was executed on 20.11.2025 2 Copy of sign bill Mark A (De-exhibited as Ex DW-1/2 (colly.) Defendant/DW-1 was cross examined by counsel for the plaintiff. No other witness on behalf of the defendant was examined.
7.1 Vide separate statement of AR of the defendant, DE was closed on 08.12.2025.
FINDINGS:
8. Final arguments were heard as advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties. This court has gone through the record of the case as well as Written Submissions filed on behalf of the defendant. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
ISSUEWISE FINDINGS CS DJ No. 506/2023 page no. 11 to 23 Issue no. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.5,24,923/- from the defendant, as prayed for? OPP
9. The onus to prove the issue was upon the plaintiff.
9.1 Plaintiff has alleged that he was appointed with the defendant company vide appointment letter dated 10.06.2020 Ex.
PW-1/1. The said appointment letter has not been denied by the defendant rather in para no. (II) of preliminary submissions of the written statement, defendant has also put reliance on the said document Ex. PW-1/1. Thus, there is no dispute with regard to the terms and conditions mentioned in the said appointment letter Ex. PW-1/1 and therefore, gross total salary of Rs.1,05,000/- per month is not in dispute.
9.2 Plaintiff has claimed the arrears of salary and other dues outstanding against the defendant company which are as follows:
Sr. No. Description Amount
1 Unpaid salary for the month of February Rs. 1,05,000/-.
2022
2 12 days unpaid salary from 19.05.2022 to Rs. 42,000/-.
31.05.2022
CS DJ No. 506/2023 page no. 12 to 23
3 3 days salary in the month of June 2022 Rs. 1,05,000/-.
i.e. Rs. 12,115/- and one month notice
period salary i.e. from 31st June to 2nd
July
4 Bonus amount for the period of September Rs. 1,15,500/-.
2020 to June 2022 (22 months @ 5250/-
Rupee per month)
5 Paid leave amount for 40 days @ Rs. Rs. 92,280/-.
2307/- per day
6 Interest @ 12% per annum from July 2022 Rs. 53,028/-.
till 31 June 2023
Total due/recover amount Rs. 5,24,923/-.
9.3 Controverting claim of the plaintiff, defendant in written
statement has alleged that the plaintiff was appointed as a Project Manager at NTPC, Dadri site vide appointment letter Ex. PW-1/1 and that due to careless and negligent act of the plaintiff whereby he allowed de-watering pump to operate in the month of July, August and September 2021 which was a heavy rainwater season, heavy loss has been incurred by the defendant company and which is evident from the fact that the plaintiff signed bill(s) raised by 3 rd party engaged in the service of de-watering by pumps. It is further CS DJ No. 506/2023 page no. 13 to 23 submitted that when the said careless and negligent act of the plaintiff came in the knowledge of the defendant company, enquiry was constituted after which plaintiff has been 'suspended' from his job by the director of the defendant company through telephonic means. In parawise reply in the written statement, it has been submitted that plaintiff has been 'terminated' from his job by the director of the defendant company through telephonic means.
9.4 It is further submitted on behalf of the defendant that as per clause no.6 of the appointment letter Ex. PW-1/1, upon confirmation, plaintiff was bound to hold the position for at least two financial years, failing which, he shall be liable to disciplinary actions and other consequences and shall indemnify the organization for any loss or damage arising from any breach of this undertaking. It also provided that after confirmation, appointment may be terminated by the employer or other party by giving three months' notice or three months' salary to the employer in lieu of the notice period. Defendant has further submitted that plaintiff has breached the contract by resigning within two years and therefore, the plaintiff is liable to indemnify for loss and damage.
9.5 Perusal of the written statement shows that there is a general and vague denial of the averment of non-payment of salary and CS DJ No. 506/2023 page no. 14 to 23 other dues to the plaintiff. There is no specific denial regarding the said averment and the written statement is totally silent on the aspect of non-payment of salary and other service benefits. Rather, defendant has put up a new version alleging careless and negligent act on the part of the plaintiff resulting in loss to the defendant company and also plaintiff making breach of the contract by resigning within two years.
9.6 For proving arrears of the salary against the defendant company, plaintiff has relied upon and proved appointment letter Ex. PW-1/1, downloaded copy of the bank statement from 01.09.2020 to 30.12.2022 Ex PW-1/6, copy of bank statement for the period of 06.01.2022 to 31.12.2022 Ex PW-1/7. None of these documents have been controverted by the defendant company. Moreover, plaintiff appearing as a witness PW-1 was cross- examined by the counsel for the defendant and plaintiff was not cross-examined on the said document(s). Thus, the quantum of arrears of salary pending against defendant company have gone un- rebutted and un-challenged.
9.7 Defendant has alleged that careless and negligent act on the part of the plaintiff by allowing de-watering pump to operate for the period from July 2021 to September 2021 which has caused CS DJ No. 506/2023 page no. 15 to 23 losses to the defendant company and due to which enquiry was constituted against the plaintiff and after which, plaintiff was 'suspended' / 'terminated' by the director of the defendant company by the telephonic means. Perusal of the written statement shows that no specifics of enquiry has been provided i.e. how, when and by whom the enquiry was conducted. Moreover, defendant company has alleged that both suspension and termination of the plaintiff by the director of the defendant company through telephonic means but no details as to the date of the said suspension or termination has been given. Bald and vague assertion of 'suspension' / 'termination' has been made in the written statement. Counsel for the defendant has argued that during cross-examination, PW-1 has deposed that since directions regarding operation of the de-watering pump was given by the junior staff of the plaintiff and the said junior staff was under
guidance of the plaintiff and that he has signed a bill(s) for the month of July to August till 04.09.2021, it proves that the plaintiff has been careless and negligent in his duties. Mere presence of signatures on the bill(s) does not per-se proves careless and negligent act on the part of the plaintiff in absence of other proven facts indicating towards careless and negligent act on the part of the plaintiff. In cross-examination, PW-1 has specifically stated that he had instructions from the head office to continue the CS DJ No. 506/2023 page no. 16 to 23 operation of the said de-watering pump for the said period.
9.8 In cross-examination, on being questioned whether defendant has filed any document with regard to negligent and wrong decision taken by the plaintiff as well as qua termination of the plaintiff, DW-1 deposed that they have not filed but if required, they shall file the same. DW-1 has also deposed that plaintiff was informed of his negligence and wrong decision and termination both verbally and through written communication. However, in the written statement, there is no mention that plaintiff was informed of enquiry and suspension or termination through written communication. Thus, defendant has not been able to prove careless and negligent act on the part of the plaintiff so as to construe breach of the terms and conditions of the appointment letter so far as performance of duties was concerned.
9.9 Defendant has also alleged breach of clause no.6 of the appointment letter Ex. PW-1/1 by the plaintiff as after confirmation, he was supposed to serve the defendant company for at least two financial years but the plaintiff put his resignation on 03.06.2022 vide email Ex. PW-1/2. This Court has gone through terms and conditions of the appointment letter dated 10.09.2022 Ex. PW-1/1. Plaintiff was appointed on probation for a period of CS DJ No. 506/2023 page no. 17 to 23 six months and on satisfactory completion of probation period, his service was to be confirmed. As per clause no.6, upon confirmation, plaintiff was bound to hold the position for at least two financial years, failing which the plaintiff was liable to indemnify the defendant company for any loss or damage arising out of such breach. In the said clause, it is also provided that after confirmation, the appointment may be terminated by the employer or other party by giving three months' notice or three months' salary to the employor in lieu of the notice period. On reading clause no.6 in a wholesome manner, this Court is of the considered view that failure to serve the defendant company for two years after confirmation would result into indemnifying the employer either by serving for three months' notice period or by giving three months' salary in lieu of the notice period. Moreover, though defendant has alleged loss and damage from the breach by the plaintiff by not serving for at two years after confirmation, no specific particulars have been mentioned as to what loss and damage has been incurred to the defendant company by the plaintiff not serving for at least two years after confirmation.
9.10 However, this Court finds that the condition of serving three months' notice period or paying three months' salary to the employer in lieu of the notice period to be reasonable. Plaintiff CS DJ No. 506/2023 page no. 18 to 23 has himself alleged that vide email dated 03.06.2022 Ex. PW-1/2, he has sent resignation letter to the defendant company whereby he has stated that he is ready to serve one month notice period from 03.06.2022 to 02.07.2022. Since the plaintiff himself has relied upon the appointment letter Ex. PW-1/1, it appears that plaintiff is invoking the wrong clause regarding the notice period. As per clause 5, the notice period of one month was to be served during the probation period and after probation period of six months, the notice period was of three months. Perusal of the emails Ex. PW-
1/2, Ex PW-1/3, Ex PW-1/4 and Ex PW-1/5 shows that the same has been sent on the correct email ID of the defendant company which finds mention on the appointment letter Ex. PW-1/1. There is no specific denial of the receipt of the said emails. Plaintiff has admittedly served one month notice period, however, as per terms and conditions of the appointment letter, the plaintiff was required to serve three months' notice period and in lieu thereof, was required to pay three months' salary to employer i.e. defendant company herein. Resultantly, plaintiff is liable to pay two months' salary for not serving the complete notice period of three months, instead serving only one month notice period.
9.11 Plaintiff has claimed unpaid salary for the month of February 2022 Rs. 1,05,000/-; 12 days unpaid salary from CS DJ No. 506/2023 page no. 19 to 23 19.05.2022 to 31.05.2022 i.e. Rs. 42,000/-; 3 days salary in the month of June 2022 i.e. Rs. 12,115/-; and one month notice period salary i.e. from 31st June to 2nd July Rs. 1,05,000/-. The total claim of unpaid salary comes out to Rs.2,64,115/-. As per above discussion, the claim of the unpaid salary has been proved by the plaintiff. The total gross salary of the plaintiff was admittedly Rs.1,05,000/- and since plaintiff has not served the complete notice period of three months, the aforesaid claim of unpaid salary of the plaintiff is required to be reduced by two months' salary amounting to Rs.2,10,000/-. Accordingly, the plaintiff is held entitled to Rs.54,115/- only on account of unpaid salary.
9.12 Plaintiff has also claimed bonus amount for the period of September 2020 to June 2022 @ Rs.5,250/- per month totaling to Rs.1,15,500/-. Though in the appointment letter Ex. PW-1/1, there is a mention of performance bonus linked to the performance of the employee, however, the same is mentioned to be evaluated and determined by the management. No proof has been furnished by the plaintiff regarding evaluation and determination of performance bonus being done by the management of the defendant company. Equally, plaintiff has also failed to prove applicability of Payment of Bonus Act or any other policy governing the payment of the bonus. In view thereof, the claim of the bonus is declined.
CS DJ No. 506/2023 page no. 20 to 23 9.13 Plaintiff has also claimed leave entitlement for 40 days
@Rs.2,307/- per day which comes out to Rs.92,280/-. No proof of the leaves have been tendered by the plaintiff in the form of attendance record or any other work document during the period of his service with the defendant company. In view thereof, the said claim is also rejected.
9.14 Plaintiff has alleged non deposit of TDS for the month of January, April & May 2022. However, no proof of non- deposit of TDS (by way of Form 26AS of the Income Tax Department), has been filed by the plaintiff. In view of the same, the said allegation deserves rejection.
9.15 In consequence of above, plaintiff is held entitled to Rs.54,115/- from the defendant company. The present issue stands decided accordingly.
Issue no.2: If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, whether plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite and future interest, as prayed for? If yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP
10. The onus to prove the issue was upon the plaintiff.
CS DJ No. 506/2023 page no. 21 to 23 10.1 Plaintiff has claimed interest @12% per month from July 2022 till 31.06.2023. There is no mention of the rate of interest in the appointment letter in case default is made by either of the parties. This Court is not oblivious to the fact that plaintiff has been deprived of the constructive use of his money and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems fit to grant interest on the decreetal amount @9% per annum from July 2022 till 31.06.2023. However, with regard to the pendente-lite and future interest, this Court deems fit to grant interest @6% per annum in tandem with and guided by Section 34 of the CPC. The said issue is decided in above terms.
RELIEF
11. From the discussions, as adumbrated herein-above, plaintiff is entitled to following reliefs:-
a. Plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of Rs.54,115/-, from defendant.
b. Plaintiff is also entitled to the interest on the decreed amount @9% per annum from July 2022 till 31.06.2023 and also pendente-
CS DJ No. 506/2023 page no. 22 to 23 lite and future interest on the aforesaid amount @6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
c. The costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the Plaintiff and against the defendant.
12. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
13. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signedMUNISH by MUNISH BANSAL Announced in the Open Court BANSAL Date: 2026.01.29 17:21:27 +0530 on Dated: 29.01.2026 (Munish Bansal) District Judge-03, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
CS DJ No. 506/2023 page no. 23 to 23