Delhi District Court
Basant Verma vs M/S. Imperia Structure Ltd on 27 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH SANJAY SHARMA-II, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-05, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS No. 1114/17
CNR No.: DLSE01-005503-2017
Basant Verma
S/o Sh. R.P. Verma
R/o H. No. 4/2, Patparganj,
near Gandhi Nidhi, Delhi-110091
..... Plaintiff
VERSUS
M/s. Imperia Structure Ltd.
Through its director
Registered Office:
A-25, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,
New Delhi-110044
..... Defendant
Date of Institution : 25.07.2017
Date of Arguments: 02.09.2019
Date of Judgment : 27.09.2019
JUDGEMENT
1. The plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 24,97,280/- alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @ 9% per annum against the defendant.
2. The defendant is an Incorporated Company. It is engaged in real estate business.
CS No. 1114/17 Basant Verma vs. M/s. Imperia Structure Limited 1 of 14
3. The case of the plaintiff is that he was appointed as Manager (Administration) at consolidated salary of Rs. 80,000/- per month with annual increment of 20% per annum on 25.04.2012. The plaintiff performed duty at the registered office of the defendant and even traveled outstation in connection with his assigned responsibilities at expense of the defendant. The plaintiff made repeated request to the defendant for releasing his salary. The defendant deferred payment of salary on one or other pretext. Thereafter, it was agreed that the defendant will allot one dwelling unit of 2 BHK worth Rs. 32,00,000/- in its ongoing project at H2O, KP-5, Greater Noida, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. in lieu of his salary. The defendant paid conveyance / incentives for outstation visits from time to time. The plaintiff reminded the defendant regarding the said agreement on completion of the said project in the year 2013. The defendant kept on assuring the plaintiff that it will honour its commitment. The plaintiff discontinued his engagement with the defendant. The plaintiff sent resignation vide letter dated 27.07.2014 and demanded payment of Rs. 24,97,280/- alongwith interest for the service rendered by him during the period from 25.04.2012 to 28.07.2014. The defendant failed to make the payment of the said amount. The plaintiff sent legal demand notice dated 17.11.2014. The defendant replied the said notice vide reply dated 26.12.2014. The defendant refused to make payment of the salary of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the present suit.
CS No. 1114/17 Basant Verma vs. M/s. Imperia Structure Limited 2 of 14
4. The defendant, in its written statement, contended that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. The defendant denied that the plaintiff was appointed as Manager (Admn.) at monthly salary of Rs. 80,000/- with annual increment of 20% per annum. The defendant contended that the plaintiff never applied for appointment with the defendant. It contended that it had never issued any appointment letter to the plaintiff. It contended that the plaintiff was never entered into muster rolls. The plaintiff never marked his attendance either in the register or on biometric system. The defendant denied that there was employer-employee relationship between them.
5. The case of the defendant is that the plaintiff was known to then C.O.O. Mr. Ralph Delemos. The plaintiff was intending to gain experience under him. Mr. Ralph Delemos associated the plaintiff with him. The plaintiff worked as a volunteer with him for earning experience. The plaintiff had no fixed days or hours of working in office. The plaintiff was alloted an e-mail ID i.e. [email protected], on request of Mr. Ralph Delemos, for communication. The defendant has no record of appointment or attendance of the plaintiff and therefore, the defendant cannot comment as to when the plaintiff started working as volunteer under Mr. Ralph Delemos. The defendant denied that any amount of salary was ever payable to the plaintiff. The defendant denied that it agreed to allot any apartment or dwelling unit of any project to the plaintiff. The defendant stated that demand notice dated 17.11.2014 was duly replied vide reply dated 26.12.2014. It denied liability to pay suit amount.
CS No. 1114/17 Basant Verma vs. M/s. Imperia Structure Limited 3 of 14
6. In the replication, the plaintiff denied contentions raised by the defendant. He reiterated averments made in the plaint.
ISSUES:
7. On the pleadings, following issues were framed:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of suit amount of Rs. 24,97,280/- in terms of prayer clause (a) of the plaint?
(OPP)
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest, If so, at what rate and for what period?
(OPP)
(iii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
(OPD)
(iv) Whether there is no employer-employee relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant?
(OPD)
(v) Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE:
8. The plaintiff appeared as PW-1. He deposed, on strength of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He relied on documents, as under:
Sl No. Description Exhibit
1. Experience letter dated 07.07.2014 Ex.PW1/1
2. Letter of appreciation Ex.PW1/2
3. Notice dated 17.05.2012 and 27.07.2012 Ex.PW1/3
4. 52 e-mails Ex.PW1/4
5. Certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act Ex.PW1/5
6. Resignation letter dated 27.07.2014 Ex.PW1/6
7. Reply dated 26.12.2014 to demand notice Ex.PW1/7
dated 17.11.2014
8. Lease deed Mark A
9. Bank statement of the plaintiff Ex.PW1/D1
CS No. 1114/17 Basant Verma vs. M/s. Imperia Structure Limited 4 of 14
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE:
9. The defendant examined its Authorized
Representative Mr. Brig. D.S. Gill as DW-1. He deposed, on strength of affidavit Ex.DW1/A. He relied on board resolution dated 09.12.2013 Ex.A1.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
10. I have heard arguments of Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and Ms. Neha Gupta, Advocate for the defendant and examined the pleadings and documents. ISSUE NO. 3:
11. Issue No. 3 related to bar of limitation in institution of the suit was framed on the preliminary objection raised by the defendant, in the written statement, that the claim of the plaintiff for salary was barred by limitation as it was raised after three years from the date it became due.
12. Ld. Counsel for the defendant submitted that the plaintiff is seeking recovery of salary for the period from 25.04.2012 to 27.07.2014. She submitted that the salary for an employee became due on the last day of the corresponding month and therefore, the suit instituted by the plaintiff on 25.07.2017 is barred by limitation. She submitted that the plaintiff has claimed salary after expiry of limitation period of three years from the date it became due.
13. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff was not paid salary for the said period and he was promised a flat in the ongoing project of the defendant. He submitted that the claim of the plaintiff is a 'debt' on the defendant and therefore, the suit is not barred by limitation.
CS No. 1114/17 Basant Verma vs. M/s. Imperia Structure Limited 5 of 14
14. The plaintiff is seeking recovery of salary for the period from 25.04.2012 to 27.07.2014. The plaintiff, in his cross-
examination, admitted that due date of monthly salary is the last day of that month. According to Article 7 of the Schedule to the periods of limitation of The Limitation Act, 1963, period of limitation is three years and it commences in case of wages of any person, when the wages accrue becomes due. The salary became due on the last day of that month. The plaintiff instituted the present suit on 25.07.2017. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff for the salary from the period from 25.04.2012 to 30.06.2014 is barred by limitation. However, the claim of the plaintiff for the salary for the month of July 2014 is not barred by the limitation.
15. Accordingly, issue No. 3 is answered.
ISSUE NO. 1, 2 and 4:
16. Issue No. 1, 2 and 4 are interconnected and therefore, they are taken up together for adjudication.
17. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff is seeking recovery of salary for the period from 25.04.2012 to 27.04.2014. He submitted that the defendant had promised the plaintiff that it will allot 2 BHK residential flat in its ongoing project at H2O, KP5, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP worth Rs. 32,00,000/- in lieu of salary for the said period. He referred reply dated 26.12.2014 Ex.PW1/7 to contend that the defendant stated that the plaintiff was a part time casual employee of the company and he was paid an amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month in cash. He submitted that the defendant has not produced any evidence that it paid the said amount.
CS No. 1114/17 Basant Verma vs. M/s. Imperia Structure Limited 6 of 14
18. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the defendant is denying relationship of employer and employee despite the said admission. He referred Experience Letter dated 07.07.2014 Ex.PW1/1 to contend that Ms. Nonika Khera, Head- HR of the defendant certified that the plaintiff worked in the capacity of Manager-Administration from April 2012 till June 2014. He referred Letter of Appreciation dated 21.07.2014 Ex.PW1/2 to content that Ms. Nonika Khera, Head-HR stated that the plaintiff was associated with the defendant for approximately two years and during his tenure from 2012 to 2014 and he had taken great interest in his field and initiated activities favorable to the defendant and its employees. He referred General Notice dated 17.05.2012 Ex.PW1/3 to contend that the plaintiff had issued that notice to the employees of the defendant, in the capacity of Manager-Administration, to provide details of their vehicles for arranging parking stickers. He referred email dated 26.05.2014 Ex.PW1/4 to contend that the said email was sent from email ID of Mr. Ralph Delemos to Kumar Tourist confirmed the status of the plaintiff as that of an employee. He referred email dated 21.05.2012 issued by the plaintiff, in the capacity of Manager-Administration, from email ID [email protected] to employees of the defendant to provide details of their vehicles for parking stickers. He referred e-mails of the employees of the defendant addressed to the plaintiff alongwith registration number of their vehicles. He referred various emails addressed to the plaintiff wherein he is mentioned as Manager-Administration Ex.PW1/4 (Colly.).
CS No. 1114/17 Basant Verma vs. M/s. Imperia Structure Limited 7 of 14
19. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff referred Lease Deed Mark 'A' whereby the plaintiff in the capacity of Manager- Administration entered into a lease regarding office space in District Centre, Janak Puri. He submitted that the plaintiff has filed sufficient documentary evidence to prove that he was employed as a Manager-Administration with the defendant. He submitted that the defendant was looking after security, labour cases, general administration of the defendant and liaisoning with other agencies. He submitted that DW-1 D.S. Gill has admitted that there is no record of receipt of payment of Rs. 15,000/- in cash to the plaintiff. He submitted that the plaintiff mentioned his designation as Manager-Administration in e-mail dated 24.05.2013, 25.06.2013 and 02.05.2013 addressed to DW-1 D.S. Gill. He submitted that the plaintiff has proved that he was employed as Manager-Administration. He submitted that the defendant has not led any evidence to prove that it paid salary to the plaintiff for the said period. He submitted that the quantum of salary claimed by the plaintiff is commensurate to his designation and nature of duties assigned and performed by the plaintiff while he was employed with the defendant. He prayed that the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the suit amount.
20. Ld. Counsel for the defendant submitted that the plaintiff never employed the defendant as Manager- Administration. She submitted that the plaintiff has not proved any appointment letter or salary slip issued by the defendant. She submitted that there is no record regarding appointment and payment of salary to the plaintiff.
CS No. 1114/17 Basant Verma vs. M/s. Imperia Structure Limited 8 of 14
21. Ld. Counsel for the defendant submitted that the plaintiff has not made any correspondence regarding payment of salary for the said period at the said rate since 25.04.2012 to 26.07.2014. She submitted that the plaintiff has also not been able to lead any evidence that the defendant ever promised the plaintiff that it will allot any residential unit in its project in Gautam Budh Nagar. She submitted that the plaintiff has not been able to prove his case that he was employed with the defendant as Manager-Administration and further that his salary was Rs. 80,000/- per month with annual increment of 20% per annum. She prayed dismissal of the suit.
22. On thoughtful examination of the pleadings and the evidence, documentary and parole, it is evident that the plaintiff has not been able to prove its case that he was employed with the defendant as Manager-Administration on 25.04.2012 and his monthly salary was Rs. 80,000/- per month with annual increment of 20% per annum.
23. The plaintiff has not proved any appointment letter. He has not filed any salary slip. He admitted, in his cross- examination, that the defendant issued appointment letter, appraisals and monthly salary slips to his employees. The plaintiff is claiming that he was employed with the defendant in the capacity of Manager-Administration. However, he has passed 12th standard only. He has done diploma in electrical engineering from a private institute namely IET Delhi in the year 1988. He has admitted that his qualification has no connection with the nature of work associated with the office of Manager- Administration.
CS No. 1114/17 Basant Verma vs. M/s. Imperia Structure Limited 9 of 14
24. It is not the case of the plaintiff that he had experience in dispensing the nature of duties attached to the office of Manager-Administration. He has neither claimed nor led any evidence that he was employed with other companies in the said capacity. The plaintiff claimed full time employment with the defendant. He filed his statement of account Ex.PW1/D1. He has not explained the credit entries in his statement of account Ex.PW1/D1. In the said statement of account, there was credit of Rs. 48,000/- on 23.08.2013 by cash, Rs. 10,000/- on 23.08.2013 by cash, Rs. 10,000/- on 03.10.2013 by clearing, Rs. 20,000/- on 06.12.2012 by cash, Rs. 5,000/- on 26.12.2013 by cash, Rs. 4,000/- on 15.01.2014 by cash, Rs. 48,000/- on 23.07.2014 and Rs. 30,000/- on 24.07.2014. The plaintiff has not explained the said entries in his account. On being questioned, he deposed that he said entries in his account were from earnings from vocation / job other than his employment with the defendant. If the plaintiff was full time employee of the defendant, the plaintiff must explain the said receipt of amount in his account. The plaintiff has not explained the said receipt of amount in his account.
25. The plaintiff is claiming salary for the period from 25.04.2012 to 27.07.2014. However, he never addressed any letter or representation to the defendant regarding his claim for salary for the said month or his claim for a residential 2 BHK unit in the ongoing project of the defendant. The plaintiff for the first time sent resignation letter dated 27.07.2014 to the defendant staking the said claim.
CS No. 1114/17 Basant Verma vs. M/s. Imperia Structure Limited 10 of 14
26. So far as contention that the defendant has not led any evidence that it paid amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the plaintiff is concerned, it can be stated that the plaintiff has admitted in para No. 3 of the plaint that the defendant continued to pay conveyance / incentives for out station visits to him. The plaintiff has also not explained the aforesaid credit entries in his statement of account. The case of the defendant that the plaintiff was paid Rs. 15,000/- from sundry account cannot be negated.
27. It is relevant to note that the plaintiff has claimed that he resigned from the defendant on 27.07.2014 vide resignation letter Ex.PW1/6. However, Experience Letter Ex.PW1/1 would show that the plaintiff worked in the capacity of Manager- Administration from April, 2012 to June, 2014. If the plaintiff was employed with the defendant till June, 2014, there was no necessity of sending resignation letter Ex.PW1/6 on 27.07.2014. It is further relevant to note that Letter of Appreciation Ex.PW1/2 was issued on 21.07.2014 with the greeting to the plaintiff to success in his future assignment. In the same manner, Experience Letter Ex.PW1/1 states that the plaintiff holds no liabilities towards the defendant company and during his tenure, he was regular, honest and diligent in his duties and responsibilities with the greeting to him to all success in his future endeavour. If the plaintiff ceased to be in the employment of the defendant since June, 2014, the plaintiff had no reason to resign on 27.07.2014 vide Resignation Letter Ex.PW1/6.
CS No. 1114/17 Basant Verma vs. M/s. Imperia Structure Limited 11 of 14
28. There is no evidence that the defendant ever promised the plaintiff that it will allot a 2 BHK residential unit in its ongoing project in Gautam Budh Nagar.
29. The reliance of the plaintiff on the e-mails Ex.PW1/4 (colly.) and General Notice Ex.PW1/3 to prove his designation as Manager-Administration would not help him. Mere mention of the said designation in the said documents would not prove that the plaintiff was employed in the said capacity and further, on the emoluments the plaintiff is claiming in the suit.
30. Experience Letter Ex.PW1/1 and Letter of Appreciation Ex.PW1/2 would not prove that the plaintiff was employed in the said capacity and on the consolidated salary of Rs. 80,000/- per month with the defendant.
31. The Court is convinced that the plaintiff was associated with the defendant and he was paid casual amount for the services rendered by him to the defendant which find reflection in the statement of bank account Ex.PW1/D1. The plaintiff ceased to be working with the defendant since June, 2014. The plaintiff procured the said experience letter and letter of appreciation despite the fact that he was not possessing any qualification or experience for working as Manager- Administration and thereafter, the plaintiff sent resignation letter to create the claim for salary and filed the present suit on frivolous grounds.
32. It is proved that there was no relationship of employer-employee between the plaintiff and the defendant.
CS No. 1114/17 Basant Verma vs. M/s. Imperia Structure Limited 12 of 14
33. The plaintiff has failed to prove that he was employed with the defendant in the capacity of Manager-Administration on 25.04.2012.
34. The plaintiff has also failed to prove that his consolidated salary was Rs. 80,000/- per month with annual increment of 20% per annum.
35. Therefore, issue No. 1, 2 and 4 are decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
RELIEF
36. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff against the defendant is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order of cost. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA
SHARMA
Announced in the open Court
Date: 2019.09.28
16:26:39 +0530
Sh. Sanjay Sharma-II
Dated: 27th September, 2019 Additional District Judge-05 (SE)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
CS No. 1114/17 Basant Verma vs. M/s. Imperia Structure Limited 13 of 14
CS No. 1114/17
27.09.2019
Present : Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff.
Ms. Neha Gupta, Advocate for the defendant.
Vide separate judgment, the suit of the plaintiff against the defendant is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order of cost. Decreesheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Sanjay SharmaII ADJ05 (SE)/Saket Court New Delhi/27.09.2019 CS No. 1114/17 Basant Verma vs. M/s. Imperia Structure Limited 14 of 14