Bangalore District Court
Sri. Sita Rama Balaji Maganti vs Ge India Industrial Private Ltd on 19 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-38), BANGALORE CITY.
:PRESENT:
Sri. Yashawanth Kumar, B.A.(Law), LL.B,
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
C/c XXXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-38)
Bengaluru City.
DATED This the 19 th day of September 2022
O.S.NO. 9019/20 13
PLAINTIFF/S Sri. Sita Rama Balaji Maganti,
Abed about 35 years,
D.No. 69-3-15/5, Flat No. FF3,
5th Floor, Nikitha Enclave,
Nagavanam Centre, Nagamalli Thota,
Kakinada - 533 003.
Andhra Pradesh.
(By Sri. P.N. Advocate)
Versus
DEFENDANT/S GE India Industrial Private Ltd.,
(Formerly known as GE India Technology
Centre Pvt. Ltd)
Having its registered Address at:
401-402, 4th Floor,
Aggarwal Millennium Tower,
E1, 2, 3, Netaji Subhash Place,
Wazirpur,
New Delhi - 110 034.
(By Sri. H.M. Advocate)
2 O.S.No. 9019/2013
Date of Institution of the suit 11.12.2013
Nature of suit Suit for Declaration and
Injunction
Date of commencement 08.03.2018
of recording of evidence.
Date on which judgment 19.09.2022
was pronounced.
Total Duration. Years Months Days
08 09 09
C/c. XXXVII ACCJ, BANGALORE
3 O.S.No. 9019/2013
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for declaring that the plaintiff ceased to be an employee of the defendant on and with effect from 30.8.2011.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as under:-
The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant company from January 2005 to July 2010. In June 2010, he was offered a job with the defendant as a 'Technical Leader' in their organization vide offer letter dtd: 17.6. 2010. The said offer letter was very comprehensive and contained all the terms and conditions that would be applicable to the plaintiffs employment. The plaintiff completed the formalities as stated in the offer letter dt: 17.6.2010 and commenced his employment with defendant on 2.8.2010. The plaintiff was an honest employee of the defendant. He has served the defendant with utmost dedication and sincerity. He soon became key technical technical person in the defendant company. The plaintiff received a very prestigious global level award for his contribution in resolving one of the most contentious customer issues faced by the defendant, which resulted in huge cost savings to the defendant's customers, 4 O.S.No. 9019/2013 and thereby significantly bolstered the defendant's image and reputation. After completing a year of service with the defendant, the plaintiff decided to resign and sent his resignation to his manager one Mr. RajeshKumar Ravikumar vide email dt: 17.7.2011 informing his decision to resign w.e.f. 16.8.2011 giving one month notice as per clause 6 of the offer letter and clause 10.0 of the 'General Service conditions.' The officers of the defendant desperately wanted the plaintiff to remain for additional 6 months, as the plaintiff was extremely talented, and made several oral requests with regard to the same. However, the plaintiff informed the officers of the defendant that he did not wish to continue his employment with the defendant company. Therefore, the officers of the defendant were extremely annoyed with this development and treated the plaintiff with open hostility for refusing to accede their request. In spite of the same, there was no sign that his resignation had been accepted even one month after the plaintiff had sent in the same. Upon the plaintiff's insistence on numerous occasions, the said Mr. Ravikumar finally accepted the plaintiff's resignation vide email dt:
19.8.2011, which is more than a month after the plaintiff's has 5 O.S.No. 9019/2013 tendered his resignation. In his email said Ravikumar informed the plaintiff that his resignation was accepted and he would be relieved on 31.8.2011. In fact the decision to extend the plaintiff's relieving date from 16.8.2011 to 31.8.2011 unilaterally taken by the officers of the defendant, the plaintiff reluctantly agreed to the same. The said email also asked the plaintiff to raise his 'exit process' using the link provided. That was the first time that there was any whisper of an 'exit process' or any other such procedural formality, and that all the documents relating to the plaintiff's employment with the defendant only contemplated one month's notice, or salary in lieu thereof. However, the plaintiff completed and filled in necessary details using link provider in the said email on 30.8.2011. The plaintiff has completed all the exit formalities, as 31.8.2011 was a public holiday and the end of his employment survived by both Rajesh kumar Ravi kumar and plaintiff signing a printout of resignation email dt: 16.7.2011 and the corresponding acceptance email dt: 19.8.2011. However on 30.8.2011, minutes prior to the plaintiff being permanently relieved, he was suddenly accused of copying confidential information by the officers of the 6 O.S.No. 9019/2013 defendant in what was most certainly a last ditch attempt by the defendant to extend the plaintiff's relieving date or maliciously cause him undue hardship. The officers of the defendant then forced the plaintiff to take them to his house, where by proceeded to violate his privacy by searching his personal computer for any 'confidential information'. Not finding anything incriminating, they still insisted of erasing his hard drive which only contained his personal data. The plaintiff reluctantly allowed them to proceed, though his privacy was breached, he did not file any complaint to put an end to the matter. Since then the plaintiff stopped reporting to work and both parties treated the employment has come to an end.
However, the plaintiff received a show-cause notice dt:
20.9.2011 from the defendant alleging that email dt:
19.8.2011 sent by Mr. Ravikumar and his subsequent actions on 30.8.2011 i.e., signing a printed copy of plaintiff's resignation email dt: 17.7.2011 ad his own acceptance email dt: 19.8.2011 did not constitute the acceptance of plaintiff's resignation and the same was subject to compliance of various clearences/verifications as per the companies policies. The show-cause notice alleged that officers of the defendant had 7 O.S.No. 9019/2013 completed their verification and found that the plaintiff down load or copy confidential information and called on the plaintiff to show cause why his employment should not be terminated. When in fact the plaintiff had successfully resigned w.e.f. 30.8.2011. The plaintiff was given 24 hours time to reply the allegations made against him. Therefore, the defendant engaged the plaintiff in a protracted and unnecessary correspondence which ended in a letter from defendant dt: 26.9.2013. At some point during the course of correspondence the defendant suddenly took a view that plaintiff continued to be an employee of the defendant even though he had not reported to work even once after 30.8.2011. The defendant proceeded to terminate the employment of plaintiff on 17.11.2011, which was erroneous and contrary to the position established by the record that plaintiff has already resigned w.e.f. 30.8.2011 and said resignation had been accepted and acted upon. The defendant owed the plaintiff some amounts in terms of unpaid gratuity and illegally deducted 'Relocation Expenses' and it was after long and protracted exchange of letters with the defendant.
The defendant has also erroneously credited salary for the 8 O.S.No. 9019/2013 period from 31.8.2011 to 17.11.2011, when in fact the plaintiff's employment was terminated by way of resignation w.e.f. 30.8.2011. By a legal notice dt: 17.8.2013, the plaintiff informed the defendant that an amount of Rs.1,68,214 was owned to him towards unpaid gratuity and that an amount of Rs. 60,920/- had been wrongfully deducted towards relocation expenses. In the said notice the plaintiff informed the defendant that the salary had erroneously credited for the period from 31.8.2011 to 17.11.2011. Even though the plaintiff was not an employee of the defendant during that period. The notice informed the defendant that the amount due to the plaintiff may be set-off against the amount erroneously credited to his account and if the plaintiff still owed defendant any amount then he is ready to pay the same and the defendant furnishing him corrected final statement showing his last date of employment as 30.8.2011. However by the reply dt: 26.9.2013, the defendant denied that plaintiff's employment ended on 30.8.2011 and alleged that there was no mistake with the records and the plaintiff continued to be an employee till 17.11.2011, when his employment was terminated. The legal notice alleged that the plaintiff had 9 O.S.No. 9019/2013 committed theft of defendants confidential data and as such he was not entitled relieving letter stating that his employment came to an end w.e.f. 30.8.2011. The notice also stated the amount of Rs. 60,920/- and an amount of Rs. 2,04,245/- had been credited to the plaintiff's account towards relocation expenses and unpaid gratuity. In view of the above circumstances, the plaintiff has come up with the present suit.
3. The defendant appeared and filed his written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable.
(a) It is contended that the defendant is a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. The plaintiff is a former employee of the defendant. Prior to employment with defendant, the plaintiff was employed with GE India Industrial Pvt. Ltd., In June 2010, the plaintiff was offered employment by the defendant as a Technical Leader vide offer letter dt: 17.6.2010. The Term technical leader did not signify any internal hierarchy or position, it reflected on the strong leadership expectations of the defendant from the plaintiff. The Clause 2 of the letter of appointment states that 10 O.S.No. 9019/2013 the acceptance of the employment on the part of the employee is complete upon signing the following documents:
(1) General Service conditions(GSC) (2) Integrity-The spirit and letter of our commitment (3) Employee Innovation and Proprietary Information agreement(EIPIA)
(b) As such the above documents form a part of letter of appointment. The letter of appointment specifies at Clause 3 that, the employees service with the defendant will be governed by the conditions detailed in the letter of appointment and the above said documents. The plaintiff by signing the EIPIA expressly under took to disclose and assign to the defendant or as the defendant may direct, all sole or joint work of authorship and any copy right therein, within the scope of employment as the defendant's exclusive property. The plaintiff further under took to give up his right to claim authorship as envisaged under Sec. 57 of the copyright Act, 1957 in accordance with the mandates of Sec.
21 of the Act. The plaintiff undertook to not use, publish or otherwise disclose, either during or subsequent to his employment, any secret and/or confidential information or 11 O.S.No. 9019/2013 data belonging to the defendant and/or its parent, subsidiaries or affiliates; or the date belonging to others, such as the defendant's clients, that the defendant and or/ his parent, subsidiaries or affiliates are obligated to maintain in confidence. The entire work of the plaintiff during the course of his employment with the defendant is confidential and proprietary to the defendant. The plaintiff acknowledged that breach of any obligations or other provisions of the EIPIA may cause irreparable injury to the defendant which cannot be fully compensated by money.
(c) As per clause 3 of the GSC, during the continuation of the plaintiffs employment and thereafter he shall not at any time or times, without the consent of the defendant disclose or divulge or make public , except under legal obligation, any of the processes, research, research notes, designs, problems, practices, formulae, records, suggestions, discussions, accounts, transactions or dealings of the defendant which ought not to be disclosed, divulged or made public whether the same may be confided or become known to the plaintiff in the course of his service or otherwise and the plaintiff shall not remove from the defendant's premises any notes, 12 O.S.No. 9019/2013 drawings or other documents or materials relating to the defendant's knowledge or information. As per clause 4 of GSE, the plaintiff undertook and agreed to handle all defendant's property including all correspondences, memorandums, books, technical books, licenses, price lists, notebooks, formulae, designs, drawings, research notes and materials, or any other documents, samples or any other goods belonging to the defendant, which shall come into his possession in the course of his employment. The plaintiff undertook to treat defendant's aforesaid property with care and diligence and as the absolute property of the defendant and that he would at any time during the employment or upon the termination, thereof for any cause whatsoever, deliver back to the defendant the same without any lien whatsoever. The GSC by virtue of clause 5.1, binds the plaintiff from disclosing confidential and proprietary information to any one outside the defendant company even subsequent to the plaintiff leaving the services of the defendant.
(d) Pursuant to the issuance of the letter of appointment by the defendant, the plaintiff accepted the said appointment and began his tenure as an employee with the 13 O.S.No. 9019/2013 defendant from August 02, 2020. The Plaintiff upon completion of a year's service with the Defendant, informed the Defendant vide email on July 17, 2011 of his decision to resign with effect from August 16, 2011. The Plaintiff in the said e-mail expressed his intention to resign and further declared that August 16, 2011 be treated as his date of resignation. Pursuant to the aforesaid e-mail Mr. Rajeshkumar Ravikumar, the Manager at the Defendant company ("Defendant's officer") vide his email dated August 19, 2011 informed the Plaintiff that he may be relieved on August 31, 2011 and further called upon him to complete the exit process. The Defendant's officer vide his reply e-mail dated August 19, 2011 informed the Plaintiff that his resignation was accepted and that the plaintiff may be relieved on August 31, 2011; however, the said e-mail further specified that the exit process was to be completed by the Plaintiff. Thus, the acceptance of the resignation was contingent upon the plaintiff completing the exit process. The Defendant has a policy that when the exit work flow is raised there are a list of things that need to be completed and complied so as to ensure the final exit, amongst other things, one of the 14 O.S.No. 9019/2013 conditions that ought to be fulfilled by an employee who was resigning from the Defendant Company was, as undertaken by him/her under EIPIA of not using any of the Defendant's confidential information/data, since its valuable intellectual property is at stake, the Defendant being a Research and Development center.
(e) The exit process required the Plaintiff to complete certain procedural requirements and thereafter, clear a verification check conducted by the Defendant on the affairs of the Plaintiff during his tenure with the Defendant. on August 30, 2011, when the Plaintiff sought to be relieved, certain irregularities in the Plaintiff's activities during the course of his employment came to light. It is further submitted that subsequent to the verification, the Defendant discovered that the Plaintiff during the course of his employment had illegally and with mala fide intent downloaded/copied and made extracts of information and removed several confidential information proprietary to the Defendant in supersession of his duties and liabilities towards the Defendant. Pursuant to such discovery, the Defendant conducted a thorough search and enquiry of the Plaintiff's 15 O.S.No. 9019/2013 company provided laptop and records. Pursuant to such search and enquiry the Defendant came to learn several instances of the Plaintiff transferring data from his company provided laptop to his personal email address and external storage devices. The Defendant's information technology department subsequent to the search generated a Data Movement Report dated August 30, 2011, which listed all the files and folders transferred and accessed from the Defendant's database through the Plaintiff's company provided laptop. . Commer :
min .196 . solely due to the aforementioned, the exit process of the Plaintiff was not concluded and thus, the resignation of the Plaintiff was not accepted until the completion of the investigation process.
(f) Pursuant to the Data Movement Report the Defendant was constrained to issue a show cause notice dated September 20, 2011. Through the said show cause notice, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff that the Defendant had discovered that the Plaintiff had indulged in downloading/copying/making extracts and removing confidential information and information that was proprietary to the Defendant and that the Plaintiff had further 16 O.S.No. 9019/2013 downloaded client database and other databases which were proprietary to the Defendant. The Defendant further called upon the Plaintiff to explain as to under whose authority the Plaintiff had proceeded to remove the confidential information and database that was proprietary to the Defendant. It is further submitted that, the Defendant called upon the plaintiff to return all the information that was proprietary to the Defendant and further tender an unconditional apology and an undertaking that the said confidential information shall not be utilized by the Plaintiff but shall be destroyed by him.
(g) the Plaintiff not only failed to comply with the mandates of the show cause notice but further issued a response dated September 24, 2011 denying all allegations leveled against the Plaintiff. It is pertinent to state that, whilst, in paragraph 6 of the aforesaid letter, the Plaintiff denies that he had downloaded, copied, made extracts and removed the client database and other databases, which are proprietary to the Defendant; on the other hand, in paragraph 8'f the saine letter, the Plaintiff admits that he consolidated all the projects he worked on for the past one year and took a 17 O.S.No. 9019/2013 complete back-up of his projects and other important data. , this itself prima-facie establishes the factual happenings and evinces the fact that the Plaintiff has stolen all data constituting the intellectual property of the Defendant. It is pertinent to state that in the said letter the Plaintiff further expressed his willingness to sign a Non- Disclosure Agreement/relevant document to satisfy the concerns of the Defendant, which he has failed to fulfill till date. Pursuant to the receipt of the response, the Defendant vide its letter dated September 30, 2011, specifically and emphatically denied all the averments of the Plaintiff and reiterated its stand and further called upon the plaintiff to execute the Non-
Disclosure Agreement ("NDA") on a specified date and time (i.e.,October 5, 2011) at the Defendant's offices.
(h) subsequently the Plaintiff vide letter dated October 4, 2011 replied to the Defendant stating that since he was traveling to a customer site on such date, whence he was called upon to execute the relevant document, it would not be possible for him to execute the same at the offices of the Defendant and hence called upon the Defendant to share the standard NDA on his email or to send it to his address. 18 O.S.No. 9019/2013 Nevertheless on the very same day i.e., October 04, 2011 the Defendants issued a letter referring to its letter dated September 30, 2011 seeking the Plaintiff to visit their offices. However, pursuant to the receipt of the Plaintiff's request, the Defendant issued a letter dated October 31, 2011 and dispatched an undertaking to the Plaintiff as requested by him. However, to the Defendant's utter shock and surprise, the Plaintiff contrary to his earlier stand of executing the same, upon receipt of the Undertaking returned it vide his letter dated November 09, 2011 refusing to sign the aforementioned undertaking and falsely asserting that he has never copied any of the Defendant's confidential information. It is further submitted that pursuant to the receipt of the letter dated November 09, 2011, the Defendant vide its letter dated November 17, 2011 terminated the employment of the Plaintiff with immediate effect reasoning its act on the breach of employment terms/IP policy and security policy and the termination was further attributed to the Plaintiff's act of downloading/copying/extracting confidential information proprietary to the Defendant.
19 O.S.No. 9019/2013
(i) The Plaintiff responded to the Defendant's aforesaid letter vide letter dated November 26, 2011 again giving an assurance to sign the standard NDA. The Defendant in response to the same issued a letter dated December 27, 2011 stating that the Plaintiff had time and again showed willingness to sign the standard NDA, however, the same was never acted upon. Hence the Defendants along with the letter dated December 27, 2011 enclosed an employee reaffirmation letter whereby the Plaintiff had to reaffirm that he had disclosed and surrendered all items which belonged to the Defendant and further undertake that the plaintiff shall not use or publish or otherwise disclose any secret or confidential information of the Defendant, nevertheless the Plaintiff refrained from executing the same. Thereafter, there were no further correspondences from the Plaintiff until July 3, 2012. However on July 3, 2012 i.e., the period subsequent to the receipt of the Form 16 by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff issued a letter stating that the Form 16 was for the period April 1, 2011 to November 17, 2011 however he had resigned from the Defendant on August 30, 2011 and the Plaintiff hence called upon the Defendant to issue a corrected Form 16. Further, 20 O.S.No. 9019/2013 surprisingly the Plaintiff claimed that he had dispatched the duly executed NDA to the Defendant which the Defendant never received. In any case the Plaintiff failed to sign the employee reaffirmation letter which he affirmed that he would sign. The said factum prima-facie evinces that the Plaintiff on account of his deeds is hesitant to sign off a document which records that the Plaintiff would refrain from misusing the Defendant's data/ intellectual property since evidently the Plaintiff has intentions of using the same for his own gains.
(j) Subsequent to generating the Data Movement Report, the Defendant also undertook a thorough forensic study to determine the nature and content of the data to have been transferred and stolen by Plaintiff from the Defendant's database. The said forensic study, being extremely technical and sensitive in nature, was conducted by the Defendant's parent company in the United States of America. The forensic report revealed that several key sensitive technical data intrinsic to, not only the Defendant's business, but to those of their clients as well was transferred and stolen by the Plaintiff. It is pertinent to state that, the said confidential information 21 O.S.No. 9019/2013 could be used by the Defendant's competitors to illegally profit by selling the same to the Defendant's client's competitors, thereby allowing them to take undue advantage against the Defendant's clients. Therefore, such unauthorized breach of the confidentiality policy has not only caused irreparable damage and loss of business reputation to the Defendant, but has harmed the business interests of its customers as well. The actions of the plaintiff has regardless of the above in turn adversely affected the Defendant's business, the Defendant itself being under an obligation to its customers to keep information privy to them confidential.
(k) The forensic report issued by the Defendant's parent company's headquarters in the USA clearly reveals that the plaintiff has downloaded, copied, made extracts and stolen the following classes of confidential information from the Defendant's database;
i) Internal training materials of the Defendant including, inter alia, the Defendant's long term service training material for contract performance managers and other training material specifically designed for the Defendant's employees keeping in mind the requirements of the Defendant's customers and 22 O.S.No. 9019/2013 various internal presentations created to benefit the Defendant's employees.
ii) Internal Softwares and policy documents, such as Emap set up instructions and the Defendant's Control Theory (an internal management policy)
iii) The Defendant's internal documents, in particular GEH 6195 this is related to Mark V Turbine Control application guide which describes Defendant's control system configuration its application and maintenance guidelines., GEA 17980b which is the Defendant's solar plant fact sheet and the Defendant's product position in the market which is extremely sensitive to the Defendant's business in India. The Plaintiff further stole the Defendant's fleet information which can be used to identify opportunities for new firms, as such it is an internal study with respect to the Defendant's competitors which can provide substantial amount of market intelligence to the Defendant's competitors regarding the Defendant's product study results and product design information which are only meant to be shared with the customers in respect of whose products the studies and/or designs are generated. The 23 O.S.No. 9019/2013 Plaintiff also stole several customer related information files from the Defendant's database.
(l) The Defendant's product information such as the Defendant's plant specifications, product limitations, machine assessment reports and machine maintenance guidelines, and pricing information.
(m) Further, a list of the most sensitive and confidential information proprietary to the Defendant that have been, inter alia, downloaded, copied, made extracts of and/or stole from the Defendant's database by the Plaintiff is as follows;
Files Stolen Functionality of the files stolen EEF_Control_Fund_020 Contains the fundamentals of 211 Defendant's internal training rev1.ppt and eef- material. It may be used to provide controls lecture 15.ppt training to outside parties.
GEH6195D This can be used to configure GE Mark V control system. Provides complete details of internal wiring and Mark V control system programming.
ger4222a.pdf Product description of LM100 machine which is used for internal trainings and product information sharing purpose.
Ger4200.pdf Guidelines for Economic and Technical Considerations for Combined Cycle Performance including Enhancement Options, generated by the Defendant's using empirical data collected over years 24 O.S.No. 9019/2013 of experience in the given field in order to help serve its customers better.
SB_PE_REPORT_FULL.p Sutton Bridge Power Station df Performance Test Report -
Document is extremely confidential in nature to both the Defendant and its customer for whom the test report was generated.
tm08t998_9E.pdf Technical Information Memorandum containing 9E Operability Quoting Limits and Grid Code Compliance.
The said document has been generated by collating empirical data over years of experience in the field in order to serve the Defendant's customers better.
9FA Gas Turbine Fact sheet on FA compressors - The Product Information said document has been generated Compressor Fact sheet by collating empirical data over years of experience in the field in order to serve the Defendant's customers better.
Reliance Impact loading Contains the results of a customer study_rev2.pdf funded study, and is as such a confidential document to both the Defendant and its relevant customer.
9FA 9FB Competitive GE product comparison with Landscape[1].pdf competition - Document intrinsic to the Defendant's business since divulgence of the same shall allow the Defendant's competitors access to the Defendant's patented product specifications that sets the Defendant's products apart from its competitors in the market.
25 O.S.No. 9019/2013
(n) From a perusal of the contents of the aforesaid files copied from the Defendant's database, it is evident that the said files and folders contained information developed and generated by the Defendant in the due course of its business. It is submitted that such information is intrinsic to the Defendant's business and is neither available on the public domain nor is available for sale. Any unauthorized access to the same shall allow persons with such access to illegally benefit from the Defendant's business models, pricing, product specifications, internal training materials, and the Defendant's position in the market vis à-vis its competitors and its policies. As such, the said information is sufficient for any person and/or entity gaining unauthorized access thereto, to set up a rival competing business using the Defendant's data and confidential information that has been developed by analyzing and processing empirical data collated over years of conducting business in its respective field.
(o) When the plaintiff sought to be relieved on August 30, 2011; the Defendant could not have relieved him pending completion of the exit process. The exit process revealed that the Plaintiff had indulged in transferring extremely 26 O.S.No. 9019/2013 confidential information; the essence of which has been explained aforesaid. Thus, upon completion of the enquiry, the plaintiff's employment was terminated as a consequence of his breach of the Defendant's security policy. Hence the Plaintiff's employment was terminated on November 17, 2011 owing to his misconduct and any declaration that he resigned would render the Plaintiff free despite his misconduct.
(p) A web search for the Plaintiff denotes him as Partner and Senior Consultant for a firm by name 'PATSIMO'. Further, the website of PATSIMO, http://www.patsimo.net/ falsely denotes 'GE Energy' as one of its customers. It is submitted that the plaintiff despite his termination on November 17, 2011, continues to indulge in such fraudulent practices involving the Defendant. Thus, a declaration that the Plaintiff was relieved on August 30, 2011 would render all the subsequent enquiries vexatious. Further, a declaration that the plaintiff was "relieved' contrary to the fact that his employment was 'terminated' would be unjust and would discharge the Plaintiff of all the fraudulent activities the Plaintiff had indulged in during the course of his employment with the Defendant.
27 O.S.No. 9019/2013
(q) The Plaintiff with a malafide intent downloaded/ copied/ made extracts of confidential information proprietary to the Defendant amounting to infringement of the Defendant's intellectual property rights. Hence, a declaration that the Plaintiff was 'relieved contrary to the fact that his employment was 'terminated' would be unjust and would discharge, the Plaintiff of all the fraudulent activities the Plaintiff had indulged in during the course of his employment with the Defendant.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed by my learned predecessor.
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he resigned his employment on 30.08.2011 and ceased to be the employee of the defendant?
2. Whether the defendant proves that, the plaintiff employment continued till it was terminated on 17.11.2011 by defendants?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for?
4. Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit?
5. What order or decree?
28 O.S.No. 9019/2013
5. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has been examined as PW 1 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to P21. The defendant is examined his Prl. Risk advisor & Head of Cyber security as DW-1 and Lead employee HR Manager as Dw-2, got marked documents at Ex. D-1 to D-4.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for defendant.
7. My answer to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : In the Negative
Issue No.3 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.4 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.5 : As per the final order,
for the following.
REASONS
8. Issue No.4: This Court by order dt: 13.10.2014
passed an order on the application by the defendant under Order 7 rule 11(d) of CPC and rejected the plaint. Against the said order, the plaintiff herein preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No. 1662/2014, which was disposed of on 26.10.2017. In the said order, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has observed that the present suit is of civil nature as per Sec. 9F of CPC, the plaintiff only seeks a declaration that he ceases to be an employee of defendant 29 O.S.No. 9019/2013 company w.e.f. 30.8.2011 and he has not claimed any compensation. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka restored the suit, remanded the matter to this court for adjudication according to law. The observations made by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above judgment clearly shows that this court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. No separate discussion is required to decide whether this court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit on Issue No. 4, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Therefore I answer Issue No.4 in the Affirmative.
9. Issue No.1: The plaintiff has contended that he has sent his resignation through email dt: 17.7.2011 to the manager of the defendant company informing his decision to resign w. e.f. 16,.8.2011 i.e., by giving one month notice as per clause 6 of offer letter and clause 10 of General service conditions. The manager accepted the resignation letter vide email on 19.8.2011 and informed the plaintiff that his resignation was accepted and he would be relieved on 31.8.2011. The email of the manager dt: 19.8.2011 asked the plaintiff to raise exit process by using the link provided therein. On 30.8.2011, the 30 O.S.No. 9019/2013 plaintiff completed all the exit formalities. However, on 30.8.2011, the defendant accused the plaintiff copying confidential information of the defendant. Subsequently, he received a show-cause notice dated 20.9.2011 stating that email dt: 19.8.2011 by the manager does not constitute acceptance of plaintiff's resignation and it is subject to compliance of various clearences/verification as per the companies formalities. The defendant purportedly terminated the employment on 17.11.2011 and credited salary of the plaintiff from 31.8.2011 to 17.11.2011 to the account of the plaintiff on 13.2.2012. It is the contention of the plaintiff that his resignation was accepted w.e.f. 30.8.3022 and therefore, from that date he ceases to be an employee of the defendant company. On the other hand the contention of the defendant is that the plaintiff's resignation was not accepted w.e.f. 30.8.2011, he was issued show-cause notice regarding stealing confidential data of the defendant company and therefore, he was terminated from his job on 17.11.2011.
10. Ex.P-1 is the offer letter of the defendant company dt:
17.6.2010 offering employment to the plaintiff. It is also 31 O.S.No. 9019/2013 stated in the said letter that offer of appointment is subject to certain conditions. The condition No.6 reads as under:-
" 6. In case you wish to resign/leave the service of the company you will be required to give one month's notice in writing. The company at its sole discretion may accept one month's gross salary, or part thereof, in lieu of the notice."
11. The offer letter also contains annexure No1 to 5. According to the above condition in case of plaintiff wishes to resign/leave the service of the company, he was required to give 1 month notice in writing. There is no other condition to resign from the company. The defendant company has not disputed the offer letter marked as Ex.P-1. There is no other condition under Ex. P-1 which state the procedure to be followed at the time of resignation from the company. Ex.P- 12 is the printout of email dt: 17.7.2011 wherein it is stated that plaintiff is conveying his decision to resign from the defendant company w.e.f. 16.8.2011 with a request to treat the same as letter of resignation with 1 month notice. Ex. P-12 also contains a reply of the manager of the defendant company, wherein it is stated that plaintiff's resignation was accepted and he may be relieved on 31.8.2011 and asked the 32 O.S.No. 9019/2013 plaintiff to raise exit process by using the link mentioned therein.
12. Ex. P-12 contains signature of the plaintiff as well as the manager of the defendant company. The defendant has not disputed Ex.P-12 i.e., resignation email of the plaintiff and the reply email by the manager of the company. So also the signatures of plaintiff and the manager of the defendant's company in Ex.P-12 i.e., printout of those emails.
13. The reply of manager of defendant's company asked the plaintiff to raise exit process by using the link mentioned therein. It is the contention of the plaintiff that there was no such condition in the offer letter to raise exit process by using the link mentioned therein and the plaintiff was not required to raise the said exit process. However, the plaintiff has stated that he has completed the exit formalities as contended by the plaintiff. There is no condition to raise exit process in the offer letter, no where it has been stated by the defendant company at the time of appointing him to their company that the plaintiff has to raise a exit process at the time of leaving the company. The only condition stated in the offer letter is to give 1 month notice. The email as per Ex.P-12 clearly show 33 O.S.No. 9019/2013 that the plaintiff has given one month notice to the defendant from the date of leaving the company.
14. As already stated the plaintiff has contended that he has resigned on 30.8.2011, he completed the exit formalities on the same day as 31.8. 2011 was a public holiday. There is nothing to show that the plaintiff has not completed the exit formalities and it is not contention of the defendant that the plaintiff has not completed the exit formalities.
15. The plaintiff has been examined as Pw-1. He has stated in his cross-examination that there is a typical procedure for submission of resignation and the said procedure was that he has to send his resignation through email by giving 1 months notice, after he sent his resignation, the manager called him for discussion and asked him to stay back for 6 months time, but in view of his personal commitments, plaintiff refused to stay back for 6 months.
16. It is the contention of the defendant that the defendant company has paid salary to him from 31.8.2011 till 17.11.2011 and the plaintiff has accepted the salary and therefore it cannot be said that the plaintiff has resigned from the company from 30.8.2011. It is admitted that the 34 O.S.No. 9019/2013 defendant company has paid salary up to 17.11.2011. But the said salary was paid on 13.2.2012 i.e., the salary of September was paid after about 5 months. Same is stated by the Pw-1 in his cross-examination. If the defendant treated him as an employee even after 30.8.2011, the defendant company ought to have paid the salary of September month on the last day of September or in the beginning of October month. But the defendant company has paid salary only on 13.2.2012 that too it has deposited the same to the account of the plaintiff. It is true that the plaintiff has not returned said salary, however the payment of salary after about 5 months cannot be construed as continuation of employment of the plaintiff in the defendant company.
17. Regarding acceptance and non-acceptance of resignation, the manager i.e., Rajesh Ravikumar is a material witness. But the defendant has not examined him. On the other hand, the defendant company has examined Prakash K. Padariya who is a Principal Risk Advisor and Head-Cyber Security in the defendant company. But he does not say anything about the acceptance or non-acceptance of the 35 O.S.No. 9019/2013 resignation of the plaintiff, non compliance of the exit process by the plaintiff etc.,
18. The plaintiff has relied on a decision reported in (2019)14 SCC 492,( Sanjay Jain Vs. National Aviation Company of India Limited) wherein para 10 reads as under:
"10. In our opinion, from a bare reading of the provisions contained in Standing Order 18, it is crystal clear that a permanent employee has a right to resign from the services by giving a notice of the period of 30 days as prescribed under standing order. 17, and is entitled to obtain certificate from the employer for the period services have been rendered."
19. There is no dispute that the plaintiff was a permanent employee of the defendant and therefore he was required to give 30 days notice before resigning from the company and he gave such notice to the defendant. It has been clearly stated that the resignation is accepted subject to the resignation on exit process. The defendant company has not produced any material to show that plaintiff has not completed the exit formalities. Even if he has not completed the exit formalities it was not a condition in the offer letter to 36 O.S.No. 9019/2013 be complied or required in the said above cited decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of a permanent employee. Therefore, it can be clearly made out that the plaintiff has resigned from his job and his resignation was accepted and he was relieved from his service of the defendant's company on 30.8.2011. Accordingly, I answer Issue No. 1 in the affirmative.
20. Issue No.2: - The defendant company has contended that on 19.8.20211 the defendants manager Mr. RaheshKumar Ravikumar informed the plaintiff that he may be relieved on 31.8.2011 and called upon him to complete the exit process. Therefore, the the acceptance of resignation was subject to completion of exit process. However on 30.8.2011, certain irregularities in the plaintiffs activities during the course of his employment came to light. It was discovered that the plaintiff had illegally with a malafide intent downloaded/copied and made extracts of information and removed several confidential information proprietory to the defendant in supersession of his duties and liabilities towards the defendant. Therefore, the resignation of the plaintiff was not accepted until the completion of the investigation process. Subsequently, on 20.9.2011 the plaintiff was issued a 37 O.S.No. 9019/2013 show-cause notice. Though the plaintiff denied the allegations made against him, plaintiff admitted that he consolidated all the projects he worked on during his employment for one year and took a complete back-up of his projects and other important data. It prima-facie establishes that the plaintiff has stolen all data constituting the intellectual property of the defendant. The plaintiff expressed his willingness to sign a non-disclosure agreement/relevant document to satisfy the concerns of the defendant, but he has not fulfilled the same. Pursuant to the receipt of the plaintiff's request, defendant issued letter dt: 31/10.2011 and dispatched an undertaking to the plaintiff as requested by him. However contrary to his earlier stand, he returned the undertaking, refusing to sign the same falsely asserting that he has never copied any of the defendant's confidential information. Therefore the defendant vide its letter dt: 17.11.2011 terminated the employment of the plaintiff. Therefore it is the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff has stolen data from the defendant's company and therefore he was terminated from his job on 17.11.2011.
38 O.S.No. 9019/2013
21. In order to prove the contention of the defendant company, Dw-1 has been examined. He is the Prl. Risk adviser and head of cyber security in defendant's company. He has stated that the plaintiff has transferred 14,700 files from the computer system of the defendant starting from 5.7.2011 up to 20.8.2011. The data report indicate that defendant's confidential data was transferred from the official computer system provided to him by the defendant company to an external media. The data movement report reveals certain sensitive, confidential and technical data was unauthorisedly transferred by the plaintiff. The plaintiff company has cross- examined Dw-1. The following are the extracts of evidence of Dw-1.
" ...Nobody can manually edit the excel sheet which is produced before the court(Ex. D-2 and Ex. D-3)... It is his case that from the moment the report was generated from the system until it was printed as Ex.D-2 and transferred to the C.D. of Ex.D-3 no person has manually edited. The contents of page No. 249 of Ex.D-2 document was manually edited by their manager....39 O.S.No. 9019/2013
Que: In the Affidavit at para No.9 on what basis you are saying that the plaintiff had transferred 14, 706 files of size about 20 GB between 5.7.2011 to 20.8.2011 from the computer system of defendant company to the plaintiff's personal computer system and USB drive?
Ans: The Data is transferred to the USB drive. he computer system are locked in the report. Que: In the affidavit you are saying that a vast majority of 14700 files were transferred from the computer system by the plaintiff starting from 05.07.2011 upto 20.8.2011, regarding this where it is mentioned in Ex.D2?
Ans: This portion of the words as stated by him in para No.9 such words are not reflected in Ex.D.2 document. Witness volunteers that all the dates are visible in the C.D. Ex.D-2 does not show the source from which the files were transferred . Witness volunteers that it can be verified in the CD. Ex.D-3. It is true that excel sheet is created only when the report is generated. This report was generated by one 40 O.S.No. 9019/2013 Aravind on 30th August 2011. The said Aravind at present is not working in defendant company. Que: As per the image seen in the laptop now, excel sheet was created on 21.7.2010 at 15-59 hours? Ans: The template was created on 21.7.2010. The report was generated on 30th August 2011. The said date is now not appearing in the laptop. On 7.9.2012 this file was lastly modified. I do not know who has modified this file.
I cannot explain why the time has been shown as 00.00.00 in all the emails.
Que: Why are there only 11 emails in the email tab if your system is supposedly tracking all data movements?Ans: The company generate report based on the time duration required.
Que: How it was only 11 emails in the period of one month?
Ans: This records emails only out side the company. Que: In the first column the first two entries regarding date and time is recorded in the format of year, month and date, however thereafter all entries in the date, 41 O.S.No. 9019/2013 month and year format. Can you explain the discrepancy?
Ans; I do not know the configuration setting in 2011 as I was not employed in the defendant company at that time.
I do not know why the first two entries in the removable tab do not have any entry for source directory and destination directory. I do not know why in the computer name of first two entries shows back slash in the computer name where as all the remaining entries have a forward slash.
Que: The agent local time for entries No. 5 to 603 in the removable tab of the report show the precise time of 11:41, 31 seconds. Can you explain how these 600 files could have been transferred in one second? Ans: This is the agent local time it does not show how much time it takes to transfer the files.
Que: The last six entires of page 241 of Ex.D-2 show the date and time in a different format. Can you explain why:
Ans: I do not know.42 O.S.No. 9019/2013
Que: The first 3 entries of page 243 of Ex.D-2 show the date and time in a different format. Can you explain why?
Ans: I do not know."
22. the above answers given by DW-1 are self explanatory. On going through the cross-examination of Dw-1, it is clear that he was not able to substantiate the allegations made against the plaintiff regarding theft/transferring of data. In fact some manipulation was found in the documents produced by defendants as per Ex.D-2 and the C.D. produced by them as per Ex.D-3. It can be clearly seen from the above cross-examination done to Dw-1. The evidence produced by the defendant is not sufficient to prove that the plaintiff has stolen the data and it led to his termination from the job on 17.11.2011.
23. Though one Abhishek Joshi who is an employee and HR Manager of defendant company has been examined as Dw-2, he has not tendered himself for cross-examination. The defendant company failed to make out the theft of data from the documents as per Ex.D-2 and D-3. However, the plaintiff was able to show that there was some manipulation of 43 O.S.No. 9019/2013 documents as per Ex.D-2 and D-3 by the defendant for the purpose of substantiating their allegations against the plaintiff.
24. In the above circumstances it clearly appears that only with an intention to make some insinuation against the plaintiff, the defendant has made allegations against him and ultimately terminated him from his service. But as already stated the evidence clearly shows that the plaintiff has proved that his employment with defendant company came to an end on 30.08.2011 in view of his resignation. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the plaintiff's employment continued till it was terminated on 17.11.2011 by the defendant. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 in the Negative.
25. Issue No.3 ;- In view of my answers to Issues No.1 and 2, the plaintiff entitled for the reliefs he claimed in this suit. Hence, I answer Issue No.3 in the Affirmative.
26. Issue No.5 : - Inview of my above discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs.44 O.S.No. 9019/2013
It is hereby declared that the plaintiff is ceased to be an employee of defendant company on and with effect from 30.8.2011.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th DAY OF September 2022) (YASHAWANTH KUMAR) C/c. XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, (CCH-38) BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
PW1 - Sita Rama Balaji Maganti, Documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
Ex.P1 - Original Appointment Letter along with five Annexure.
Ex.P2 - Original Spirit and the Letter.
Ex.P3 - Original Show-cause notice dated 20th
September 2011.
Ex.P4 - Original Letter issued by defendant.
Ex.P5 - Original Letter issued by defendant.
Ex.P6 - Original undertaking provided by the
defendant.
Ex.P7 - Original Letter issued by defendant.
Ex.P8 - Original Reply issued by defendant
Ex.P9 - True copy of Legal Notice dated 17-8-2013.
Ex.P10 - Original notice issued by defendant.
Ex.P11 - Original final settlement notice issued
defendant.
45 O.S.No. 9019/2013
Ex.P12 - Original printed copy of the E-mail
correspondence Letter.
Ex.P13 - Show-cause notice dated: 12.04.2019.
Ex.P14 - Reply notice.
Ex.P15 - Reply notice.
Ex.P16 - Letter dated 26-11-2011
Ex.P17 - Letter dated 3-7-2012
Ex.P18 - Letter dated 3-7-2012
Ex.P19 - Letter dated 20-8-2012
Ex.P20 - Copy of legal notice dated 13-8-2013
Ex.P21 - Copy of FORM - 16.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
Dw-1 - Prakash K. Padariya DW-2 - Abhishek Joshi.
Documents marked on behalf of the Defendant/s:
Ex.D1 - Letter of Authority
Ex.D2 - Print out of Data movement activity.
Ex.D3 - Compact Dist.
Ex.D4 - Affidavit.
(YASHAWANTH KUMAR)
C/c. XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, (CCH-38) BANGALORE.