Delhi District Court
Raj Kumar vs Magnumal Packaging Pvt Ltd on 9 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPANKER MOHAN: DISTRICT
JUDGE-04, SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
CS No. 999/2018
IN RE:
RAJ KUMAR (Dead)
Through its LRs.
1A. Smt. Munesh
W/o Late Sh. Raj Kumar
1B. Mr. Aaditya
S/o Late Sh. Raj Kumar
1C. Baby Ishita (Minor through mother/next friend)
D/o Late Sh. Raj Kumar
1D. Smt. Jagwati (Mother)
ALL RESIDENT OF:-
H.No.1/2897, Ram Nagar,
Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110032. .... Plaintiffs
VERSUS
1. Mangumal Packaging Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Managing Director
2. Sh. Pradeep Kumar Agarwal, Director,
Mangumal Packaging Pvt. Ltd.
3. Sh. Jai Prakash, Director
Mangumal Packaging Pvt. Ltd.
4. Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Director
Mangumal Packaging Pvt. Ltd.
CS No.999/2018 Page 1 of 37
Digitally
signed by
DEEPANKER
DEEPANKER MOHAN
MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09
18:30:08
+0530
Addresses of Defendant No.1 to 4:-
45-A, Tagore Gali, Babarpur,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032
Also At:-
(B) B-109, Sector-67, Noida
Uttar Pradesh-201301.
Also At:-
H-99, Sector-12, Noida,
Uttar Pradesh-201301. .... Defendants
1. CS No. : 999/2018
2. Under Section : Suit for recovery of Rs. 13,49,783/-
together with pendent-elite and
future interest, costs incidental
expenses and other charges thereon.
3. Date of institution : 29.10.2018
4. Reserved for judgment: 28.10.2024
5. Date of Judgment : 09/01/2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall dispose of the suit for recovery of Rs.13,49,783/- together with pendent-elite and future interest, costs, incidental expenses and other charges thereon filed by the plaintiff against the defendants on 29/10/2018.
AVERMENTS OF THE PLAINT
2. The defendant no.1 is a duly registered private limited CS No.999/2018 Page 2 of 37 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09 18:30:14 +0530 Company under the Companies Act, 2013 and defendants no.2 to 4 are the Directors of the defendant no.1 and are looking after day to day affairs/working of the defendant no.1 company. Formerly, defendant no.1 was known and running its business in the name of Pushp India Packaging and defendants no.2 to 4 are running another associate company under the name and style Mukesh Packaging Pvt. Ltd.
3. The Plaintiff has a vast experience in the accounts field and being impressed with the talent, expertise and skill of plaintiff, defendants had approached plaintiff and offered him the post of Account Executive in their organization and pursuant to the offer, plaintiff had joined the said post w.e.f. 22.02.2002. Plaintiff has been assured for all the statutory entitlements i.e. bonus, PPF, ESI, Gratuity, etc. and defendants have been deducting the amounts from the salary of plaintiff towards PPF, ESI etc. with the assurance of depositing the same with concerned authorities along-with contribution of defendants.
4. In the year 2005, defendants had transferred the service of plaintiff to their associate company i.e. Muskan Packaging Pvt. Ltd. vide appointment letter dated 30.12.2005 on a consolidated salary of Rs.16,000/- per month besides the statutory entitlements i.e. bonus, PPF, ESI etc. Again defendants have been deducting the contribution amounts from the salary of the plaintiff towards PPF, ESI etc. with the assurance of depositing the same with concerned authorities along CS No.999/2018 Page 3 of 37 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09 18:30:19 +0530 with contribution of defendants.
5. In the month of December, 2009 Muskan Packaging Pvt. Ltd. vide letter dated 30.12.2009 deputed the services of plaintiff to defendant no.1 for the post of Senior Accountant on a consolidated salary of Rs.22,500/- per month besides the statutory entitlements i.e. bonus, PPF, ESI etc. and accordingly plaintiff joined the said post. Throughout the employment of plaintiff, he has been working diligently and has never committed any lapse in the service and defendants have been satisfied with the work of plaintiff and always praised the work of plaintiff and gave regular enhancements in the salary of plaintiff. Plaintiff has been working with defendants since last 16 years and has been drawing a monthly salary @ Rs.32,500/- per month through cheques/direct bank transfer.
6. The Plaintiff has worked with defendants till 09/04/2018, however, defendants have not released the salary of plaintiff from May, 2017 onwards despite his repeated requests and demands. The plaintiff continued his job with defendants without salary for almost a year.
7. On 09.04.2018, defendants vide oral communication levelled baseless and frivolous allegations against plaintiff and arbitrarily terminated the employment without even serving the mandatory notice of two months and payments of the outstanding dues. The plaintiff accepted the termination and requested defendants to settle his CS No.999/2018 Page 4 of 37 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09 18:30:24 +0530 outstanding dues. The defendants assured plaintiff to settle the outstanding dues in due course of time and on the assurance of the defendants, plaintiff also returned all the company property to the satisfaction of the defendants.
8. The Defendants brazenly defaulted in performing their own undertaking and never settled the legitimate dues/salary of the plaintiff despite repeated requests and demands. Following dues of the plaintiff are outstanding against defendants:-
(a) Salary @ Rs.32,500/- per month Rs.3,03,333/-
(01.05.2017 to 09.04.2018 i.e. 9 months and 9 days)
(b) Salary @ Rs.32,500/- for 02 months Rs.65,000/-
(Mandatory 02 months notice)
(c) PF deducted but not deposited Rs.5,56,250/-
(Rs.3,125 p.m. X 89 months-Employee) (Rs.3,125 p.m. X 89 months-Employer)
(d) Gratuity @ 15 days salary for 1 year Rs.2,81,250/-
(Rs.32,500/- X 15 years)
(e) Bonus (2017-2018 Rs.32,500/-
Total amount Rs.12,38,333/-
9. The Plaintiff requested defendants to release his outstanding amounts but they never paid any heed to the said requests. Plaintiff has also issued a legal notice dated 06.08.2018 upon defendants to release the outstanding amount but despite service of said notice, defendants have neither released the outstanding amounts nor replied CS No.999/2018 Page 5 of 37 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09 18:30:28 +0530 the same. The defendants have not released the afore-said amount to plaintiff hence, defendants are further liable to pay the afore-said outstanding amounts interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. 10.04.2018. The defendants are liable to pay an amount of Rs.13,49,783/- i.e. (principal amount as on 09.04.2018 - Rs.12,38,333/- + interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. 10.04.2018 to 10.10.2018 = Rs.1,11,450/-) along with future and pendent-elite interest @ 18% p.a. till the date of actual realization.
SERVICE OF SUMMONS
10. Summons of the present suit was issued to the defendants vide order dated 30.10.2018. The summons was duly served upon defendants on 24/11/2018 and subsequently, on 04.02.2019 written statement was filed.
AVERMENTS OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
11. In the year 2003-2004, plaintiff approached defendants with a request to work in Pushp India and at the request of plaintiff, defendants used to give work to the plaintiff on contract/part time basis and the payments were made accordingly. Thereafter, defendants appointed plaintiff in Mangumal Packaging Pvt. Ltd. on contract basis for the purpose of accountancy work. Plaintiff was made a regular and salaried employee of the defendant no.1 in 2013 at the monthly salary of Rs.28,500/-. The plaintiff has concealed that any gratuity, EPF or ESI was not applicable to him. All the work of accountancy were managed and handled by plaintiff. The plaintiff has misappropriated CS No.999/2018 Page 6 of 37 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09 18:30:33 +0530 the letter heads and stamps of the defendant company by misusing his accountancy post and has misused the same to make false letters. The plaintiff started voluntarily absenting from work at the defendant company since June, 2017. The payments of the plaintiff till June 2017 have been duly made by the defendants and nothing is due on the part of defendants. The Plaintiff with the motive of extorting money from defendants has wrongly instituted this suit by fabricating documents and distortion of facts. The plaintiff seeks to take benefit of his own wrongs of deliberate and intentionally leaving work with defendants.
12. The defendants denied that the plaintiff has joined the services of the defendants w.e.f. 22.02.2002. The plaintiff had not done any such outstanding work that would have benefited the company. The plaintiff had voluntarily stopped coming to work at the defendants' company after June 2017. It is also pleaded that till the time plaintiff worked with the defendant company, all his salaries were paid to him and no dues are remaining outstanding. The defendants have denied the occurrence of incident of 09/04/2018 and further pleaded that since defendants did not terminate the employment of plaintiff, thus, there is no question of malafide termination. The Defendants specifically denied all the contents of the plaint and prayed for the dismissal of the present suit.
AVERMENTS OF THE REPLICATION CS No.999/2018 Page 7 of 37 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09 18:30:39 +0530
13. Replication to the written statement of defendants was filed on behalf of plaintiff on 20/07/2019 wherein plaintiff denied the averments of written statement. The plaintiff re-affirmed the averments of the plaint. It is further pleaded that plaintiff has been a salaried employee since beginning and he never worked as a contract employee. It is also pleaded that defendants have never made any complaint against plaintiff before competent authorities regarding the alleged forgery and misappropriation. All the payments given by the defendants are duly reflected in the bank accounts of plaintiff.
FRAMING OF ISSUES
14. Upon completion of pleadings, following issues were framed in the present case on 15.01.2020 which are as under:-
1. Whether the plaintiff was absenting from the work since June, 2017 as alleged in the written statement? OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs.13,49,783/- as sought in the plaint? OPP
3. If the Issue no.2 is answered in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
4. Relief.
EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF CS No.999/2018 Page 8 of 37 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09 18:30:44 +0530
15. Initially the plaintiff stepped into the witness box as PW-1 to prove his case and also filed and tendered his evidence affidavit but unfortunately during his cross- examination, he expired on 09/02/2023. Thereafter, vide Order dated 13/04/2023, Plaintiff's legal heirs were substituted in the present case. Thereafter, wife of the deceased plaintiff namely Ms. Munesh filed her evidence affidavit on the line of averments mentioned in the plaint. On 17.11.2023, PW-1A Ms. Munesh tendered her evidence affidavit as Ex.PW1A/A and also relied on following documents i.e. (1) Ex.PW1/1A (OSR)- Photocopy of Aadhar Card, (2) Mark A- Photocopy of Aadhar Card of deceased plaintiff, (3) Ex.PW1/2- Downloaded copy of ROC of defendant, (4) Ex.PW1/3- Downloaded copy of Muskan Packaging Pvt. Ltd, (5) Ex.PW1/4- Original joining letter dated 22.02.2002 issued by Pushp India Packaging, (6) Ex.PW1/5- Original joining letter dated 30.12.2005 issued by Muskan Packaging Pvt. Ltd, (7) Ex.PW1/6 - Original deputation letter dated 30.12.2009 issued by Muskan Packaging Pvt. Ltd., (8) Ex.PW1/7 - Original appointment letter dated 04.01.2010 issued by Mangumal Packaging Pvt. Ltd., (9) Ex.PW1/8- Original passbook of Punjab National Bank of account of deceased plaintiff, (10) Ex.PW1/9- Office copy of legal notice dated 06.08.2018, (11) Ex.PW1/10(Colly.)(Running into 02 pages)- 12 original postal receipts & (12) Ex.PW1/11- Certificate U/s 65-B of the IEA by the deceased plaintiff. On the same day, she was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant.
CS No.999/2018 Page 9 of 37
Digitally
signed by
DEEPANKER
DEEPANKER MOHAN
MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09
18:30:48
+0530
16. PW-1A deposed that she had done post graduate in MA (Hindi). She deposed that she was married with deceased plaintiff on 01.12.2002 and that time his husband was working in Pushp India Packaging. She deposed that that working hours of her husband was from 9:00am to 6:00pm. She admitted the suggestion that her husband used to go to the company at 9:00am from the house. She voluntarily deposed that sometimes he used to go at 8:30am. She admitted the suggestion that her husband never used to discuss the affairs of the company with her. She admitted the suggestion that she has no joint account with her husband. She deposed that she is not aware about the salary of her husband. She voluntarily deposed that at the time of filing the case, deceased plaintiff had told her about the salary.
17. PW-1A deposed that she is not aware whether her husband had done the degree of CA or not. She deposed that earlier her husband was working with Pushp India Packaging then Muskan Packaging and thereafter Mangumal Packaging. She voluntarily deposed that these companies are sister concern of the defendant company. She admitted the suggestion that her husband never told her at the relevant time that he was working with Muskan Packaging and thereafter Mangumal Packaging. She voluntarily deposed that her husband told him about these companies at the time of filing of the present case. She deposed that she is not confirmed whether her husband had worked for continuous 05 years with Mangumal Packaging. She deposed that she is not aware whether defendant company had 20 employees at any CS No.999/2018 Page 10 of 37 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09 18:30:53 +0530 time. She deposed that her husband not disclosed about his salary on earlier days at the time when he was doing job. He voluntarily deposed that her husband disclosed about the salary at the time of the filing of the present suit. He deposed that her husband told him that he used to work as accountant in the Mangumal Packaging and her husband used to take the salary of Rs.32,500/- per month after the deduction of PF etc. She deposed that she did not aware whether ESI is applicable for employees who were getting more than Rs.15,000/- per month. She denied the suggestion that her husband was working in Pushp India Packaging on contract basis or that her husband was paid time to time in accordance to the work done by him.
18. PW-1A deposed that she is not aware whether her husband has become regular salaried person with Mangumal Packaging in the year 2013. She denied the suggestion that Mangumal Packaging company had given the total salary of her husband till June, 2017. She deposed that she did not know whether gratuity is applicable or not. She denied the suggestion that her husband started voluntarily absenting from work at defendant company since June, 2017. She deposed that she had not filed any document regarding the ESIC PF, Bonus, Gratuity facilities. She admitted the suggestion that she had not filed any document regarding the income of her husband. She deposed that she did not know the name of the proprietor of Pushp India Packaging. She denied the suggestion that Pushp India Packaging, Muskan Packaging and defendant no.1 are different entities. She admitted the CS No.999/2018 Page 11 of 37 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09 18:30:58 +0530 suggestion that she is not aware regarding the contents of Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/11. She admitted the suggestion that documents filed with the present case are not having her signatures.
19. PW-1A denied the suggestion that Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/7 are forged and fabricated documents filed by her husband. She denied the suggestion that her husband prepared these documents i.e. Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/7 to file the present case. She deposed that she is not aware whether her husband used to file ITR or not. She admitted the suggestion that ITR of her husband is not placed on record. She deposed that she is not aware whether TDS was deducted from the salary of her husband. She deposed that she is not aware whether her husband was entitled for PF facility or not. She denied the suggestion that her husband has no dues pending against the defendant. She denied the suggestion that her husband sought to take the benefit of own wrong to deliberately and intentionally leaving the work with the defendants.
20. On 17/11/2023, PE was closed and the matter was listed for DE.
EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS
21. The Defendants to defend their case have examined only one witness i.e. DW-1 Sh. Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal, Director of defendant company. DW-1 Sh. Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal filed his evidence affidavit and on 29/02/2024, he tendered his evidence CS No.999/2018 Page 12 of 37 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09 18:31:02 +0530 affidavit as Ex.DW1/A and also relied on following documents i.e. (1) Ex.DW1/1- Extract of resolution passed by the Board of Directors, (2) Ex.DW1/2- The registration certificate of Pushp India Packaging, (3) Ex.DW1/3- Death certificate of father of the witness, (4) Ex.DW1/4(Colly.)(Running into 6 pages)- Copy of Form 5 of contributions employees State Insurance Corporation for financial year of September 2016 to 2017 and quarter 2017 to 2018, (5) Ex.DW1/5(Colly.)(Running into 2 pages)- Copy of employees State Insurance Corporation Return of Declaration Form dated 24.09.2021, (6) Ex.DW1/6(Colly.) (Running into 3 pages)- Copy of TDS return for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18, (7) Ex.DW1/7- Copy of salary ledger dated 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017, (8) Ex.DW1/8(Colly.)(Running into 02 pages)- Copy of salary payable ledger 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017, (9) Ex.DW1/9- Copy of profit and loss account for 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 of Mangumal Packaging, (10) Ex.DW1/10- Copy of balance sheet for the FY 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017, (11) Ex.DW1/11(Colly.)(Running into 10 pages)- Copy of ITR for the AY 2017 to 2018, (12) Ex.DW1/12- Copy of salary ledger 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018, (13) Ex.DW1/13- Copy of salary payable ledger 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018, (14) Ex.DW1/14- Copy of balance sheet for the FY 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018, (15) Ex.DW1/15(Colly.) (Running into 02 pages)- Copy of profit and loss account for 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018 of M/s Mangumal Packaging, (16) Ex.DW1/16(Colly.)(Running into 10 pages)- Copy of ITR for the AY 2018 to 2019 & (17) Ex.DW1/17- Certificate under Section 65-B of CS No.999/2018 Page 13 of 37 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09 18:31:07 +0530 the IEA. On the same day, he was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
22. DW-1 deposed that he is working as a director of the defendant M/s Mangumal Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant No.1) since 2009- 2010. He deposed that in regular course of business, he appointed all the staff of D-1. He deposed that in regular course, the staff was appointed on the basis of reference and accordingly employed with D-
1. He deposed that he did not issue any appointment letters to the staff/worker. He deposed that the plaintiff was appointed by him. He deposed that he had not issued any appointment letter to the plaintiff. He deposed that he had not issued Ex.PW1/4, Ex.PW1/5, Ex.PW1/6 & Ex.PW1/7 and even the signatures are forged. He deposed that though the knowledge of Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/7 had come to him when the summons of the suit had been received by him along with the documents, he had not filed any police complaint against the plaintiff. He deposed that he had paid the salary of the plaintiff till June, 2017 as he worked till June, 2017.
23. DW-1 denied the suggestion that he had paid the salary to the plaintiff till April, 2017. He deposed that plaintiff was not entitled for any bonus, PF, ESI and Gratuity. He deposed that they are not covered under the PF as they have less than 20 employees. He denied the suggestion that he had not mentioned about the forgery of his documents in my WS and also in affidavit of evidence. He denied the CS No.999/2018 Page 14 of 37 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09 18:31:12 +0530 suggestion that plaintiff had worked with the defendant till 9 th April, 2018. He denied the suggestion that on 09.04.2018 when the plaintiff came to the office, he was abused by the defendant and asked not to report for employment any further. He deposed that the plaintiff had started absenting from employment since June, 2017. He deposed that he had not made efforts to search the plaintiff. He voluntarily deposed that they did not have the personal mobile number of the plaintiff as he was using the mobile number given by the company. He admitted the suggestion that he was having the permanent address of the plaintiff in the record of the company.
24. DW-1 deposed that he had not made any efforts to visit the permanent address of the plaintiff. He voluntarily deposed that later on, they came to know that the plaintiff had started his own business of wooden packaging material at Khoda along with his brother. He deposed that however, the start of business of wooden packaging is neither mentioned in the WS nor in the evidence affidavit. He deposed that he had not issued any termination letter to the plaintiff as he is running a very small business concern. He deposed that he had not received Ex.PW1/9 (legal notice) sent by plaintiff. He admitted the suggestion that the addresses mentioned in Ex.PW1/9 are of the defendants. He denied the suggestion that the defendants used to deduct any PF amount from the salary of the plaintiff. He deposed that plaintiff started working with his father's concern i.e. Pushp India in 2003-2004. He deposed that plaintiff started working with D-1 since CS No.999/2018 Page 15 of 37 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09 18:31:17 +0530 2013. He deposed that he had not filed any document mentioning that the plaintiff was a contractual employee of D-1. He deposed that plaintiff was engaged on a contract of Rs.28,500/- per month for accounting work. He deposed that plaintiff had not given any resignation letter to D-1.
25. DW-1 further deposed that they maintained the attendance register of their staff. He voluntarily deposed that he did not remember whether the company had maintained the attendance register for the relevant period when plaintiff worked in the company. The Ex.DW1/13 is the salary ledger of the plaintiff. He denied the suggestion that the defendant had withheld the salary of the plaintiff w.e.f. 01.05.2017 to 09.04.2018 along with PF deducted but not deposited, gratuity for 15 years and bonus for 2017-2018. He deposed that he had filed the TDS returns till June, 2017 as Ex.DW1/6. However, the name of the plaintiff was not mentioned in the Ex.DW1/6.
26. On 29/02/2024, DE was closed and the matter was listed for final arguments.
27. Final arguments were heard on 26/04/2024, 08/05/2024, 24/05/2024 and 28/10/2024. Defendants have also filed their written submission.
CS No.999/2018 Page 16 of 37
Digitally
signed by
DEEPANKER
DEEPANKER MOHAN
MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09
18:31:22
+0530
ARGUMENTS OF PLAINTIFF
28. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that defendants have admitted the employer-employee relationship between them and plaintiff. It is further argued that vide Letter dated 30/12/2009 Muskan Packaging Pvt. Ltd., sister concern/ associate company of the defendant no. 1 company (earlier employer of plaintiff), deputed the services of plaintiff to defendant no.1 for the post of Senior Accountant on a consolidated salary of Rs.22,500/- per month besides the statutory entitlements i.e. Bonus, PPF, ESI, etc. and accordingly plaintiff joined the duties and worked therein till 09/04/2018 and at that point of time, his salary was Rs.32,500/- per month. It is also argued that defendants have also issued Appointment Letter dated 04/01/2010 to plaintiff in respect to the employment of defendant no. 1 company. It is further argued that defendants were satisfied with the working of plaintiff and gave him regular increments in the salary. It is further argued that from May, 2017 onwards, defendants made defaults in making the regular payments of salary to plaintiff and on 09/04/2018 defendants orally levelled baseless and frivolous allegations against plaintiff and arbitrarily terminated the employment of plaintiff. It is further argued that plaintiff accepted his termination and requested the defendants to settle his accounts but defendants failed to pay the outstanding amounts and retirement benefits to plaintiff despite assurances. It is further argued that Plaintiff has received an amount of Rs.32,500/- each on 08/12/2017, 08/12/2017 CS No.999/2018 Page 17 of 37 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09 18:31:26 +0530 and 23/03/2018 respectively through NEFT from defendant no 1, which is also reflected in the passbook Ex. PW-1/8. It is further submitted that if the plaintiff was not attending the office of defendant no.1 company since June, 2017 then why the defendants have credited the salary of plaintiff in his account for the period in which he allegedly was not under the employment. It is further argued that defendants have not explained the said transactions made in the account of plaintiff. It is also argued that the said transfers/transactions clearly proves that plaintiff was working with defendant even after June, 2017 i.e. upto 09/04/2018. It is further argued that defendants have not taken the defence in their written statement that defendant no.1 company does not fall under the ambit of Gratuity and Provident Funds law as they were having less than 10 employees and 20 employees respectively in their company/establishment. It is further submitted that defendants have not filed the attendance register maintained by them to support their version. It is further argued that defendants have filed document Ex. DW-1/4 (Colly) which reflect that defendants were having 12 employees at the relevant time. It is further submitted that as per the document Ex. DW-1/4 (Colly), the defendant no. 1 falls under the category of the company/ establishment which is under the obligation to pay gratuity to its employees under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. It is further argued that the version of defendants is self-contradictory and without any basis. It is further argued that defendants have also not replied the legal notice sent by plaintiff which clearly means that defendants admit its contents as CS No.999/2018 Page 18 of 37 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09 18:31:31 +0530 well as their liability towards plaintiff. He also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in " Sudhir Chandra Sarkar versus TATA Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. & Ors" , (D.O.D.: 27/03/1984), 1984 (3) SCC 369 and further argued that the amount of Gratuity can be recovered by filing a civil suit. It is further argued that plaintiff has proved his case on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and has led reliable evidence and therefore, the legal heirs of plaintiff are entitled for decree with cost.
ARGUMENTS OF DEFENDANTS
29. Ld. Counsel for the defendants argued that the present suit is without any cause of action. It is further argued that at the request of plaintiff, the father of defendant no. 2 to 4 (who was running a proprietorship concern in the name & style of Pushp India Packaging), gave accountancy work to plaintiff on contract/ part time basis in 2003-2004 and payments were also made accordingly. It is further argued that in the year 2013, plaintiff was appointed as salaried employee of defendant no.1 company at a monthly salary of Rs.
28,500/-. It is further argued that any gratuity, EPF or ESI was not applicable to him. It is further argued that all the works of accountancy were managed and handled by the plaintiff and he has misappropriated the letter heads and stamps of the defendant no.1 company by misusing his accountancy post, and has misused the same to make false letters. It is further argued that plaintiff voluntarily started absenting from work of the defendant no.1 company since CS No.999/2018 Page 19 of 37 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09 18:31:35 +0530 June, 2017 however, the payment of plaintiff till June, 2017 has been made to him and nothing is outstanding against defendants. It is further argued that plaintiff with the malafide intention to extort money has filed the present suit and plaintiff wants to take benefits of its own wrong of deliberately and intentionally leaving work. It is further argued that DW-1 Sh. Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal has proved the case of defendants and falsity of the averments of plaint. It is further argued that no specific suggestion has been given to DW-1 regarding falsity of testimony of DW-1 and claim of defendants. It is further argued that two companies incorporated with the same set of shareholders would be considered as distinct legal entities and each company is a separate legal entity with its own rights and obligations. It is further argued that in the present case, Pushp India, Muskan Packaging and defendant no. 1 company are completely distinct legal entities and they cannot be considered as one. It is further argued that plaintiff has left his job voluntarily on his own whim and it was not the defendants who terminated his job. It is further argued that the management cannot be made to run after the workman tirelessly when the workman abandoned his job. Ld. Counsel for the defendant also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in "Diamond Toys Co. (P) Ltd. versus Toofani Ram & Anr. (D.O.D.:
07/02/2007" in support of her arguments. It is further argued that the appointment letter and other documents relied upon by the plaintiff are forged and fabricated documents and defendants got to know about the forgery only through the present suit, however, considering the CS No.999/2018 Page 20 of 37 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09 18:31:39 +0530 humanitarian grounds, the defendants did not file any criminal case against plaintiff. It is further argued that mere fact that defendants do not prefer to exercise their rights, does not by itself automatically makes illegal acts of plaintiff as legal. It is further argued that Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act empowers the Court to compare the disputed signatures in order to arrive at a just and fair decision. It is further argued that even on bare perusal, it is apparent that signatures on Ex.PW-1/5, PW-1/6 and PW-1/7 are not similar amongst themselves. It is further argued that since the agreement in question was contrary to the statutory bar, it is void in law as per Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. It is further argued that since the number of employees was less than 10 and since the salary of the plaintiff was more than Rs. 15,000/- thus, the benefit of PF, Gratuity and ESI are not applicable to him. Ld. Counsel for the defendants also relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in " Shri Lachoo Mal versus Shri Radhey Shyam, [(1971) 1 SCC 619 " and "Smt. Narayanamma & Anr. versus Sh. Govindappa, Civil Appeal No. 7630-7631 of 2019" in support her arguments. It is further argued that Section 75 (3) of the Employee State Insurance Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. It is further argued that Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 have their own redressal mechanism for dispute. It is further argued that plaintiff has failed to prove its case by affirmative evidence. It is further argued that plaintiff has not placed on record a single shred of proof to show that more CS No.999/2018 Page 21 of 37 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09 18:31:44 +0530 than 10 employees were working in the defendant no.1 concern whereas the defendants have proved that less than 10 employees were there. It is further argued that that it is a settled legal position that the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs to prove his case and he cannot draw his strength from the weakness in the case set up by the defendant or in the evidence adduced by him. Ld. Counsel also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in "Shri Bhagwan Singh versus Shri Amrik Singh, RFA No. 705/2003". It is further argued that plaintiff is not entitled for any relief from this Court and the present suit is liable to be dismissed.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND DETERMINATION OF THE CASE ISSUE WISE ISSUE NO. 1:- Whether the plaintiff was absenting from the work since June, 2017 as alleged in the written statement? OPD
30. The onus to prove this issue is upon defendants. The defendants have taken the stand that plaintiff has worked with the defendants till June, 2017 and since June, 2017 he voluntarily stops coming to the office. Per contra, it is the case of plaintiff that he worked with defendants till 09/04/2018 and defendants have not paid the salary to plaintiff regularly from May, 2017. The defendant has also relied upon Ledger account (Salary Account) Ex.DW-1/7 and Ledger account (salary payable) DW-1/8 (Colly). It is noteworthy to mention here that ledger accounts Ex.DW-1/7 and DW-1/8 (Colly) are self-serving CS No.999/2018 Page 22 of 37 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09 18:31:49 +0530 documents and further they are not even authenticated and stamped. The document Ex.DW-1/7 and DW-1/8 (Colly) have not been proved in accordance with law. The accountant of the defendant no.1 company or the person who maintained the said entries and ledgers during ordinary course, have not been examined by the defendants. Moreover, no corroborative material has been placed on record by the defendants in support of the entries mentioned in Ex.DW-1/7 and DW- 1/8 (Colly). However, plaintiff admits that till April, 2017 he has received his monthly salary from defendants. It is note-worthy to mention here that passbook Ex. PW-1/8 reflects that on 08/12/2017, 08/12/2017 and 23/03/2018, 3 NEFTs for an amount of Rs. 32,500/- each has been credited in the account of plaintiff from defendant no.1. The defendants have not explained the said transactions in their written statement nor did they put any question to PW-1A regarding the said transactions/ transfers. It is highly improbable to believe that if plaintiff has stopped coming to the office of defendant no. 1 and had not worked with defendant no.1 since June. 2017 then for what purpose defendant no. 1 has transferred Rs. 32,500/- each on 08/12/2017, 08/12/2017 and 23/03/2018 in the account of plaintiff. In the absence of any explanation about the said transactions, it would be probable to consider the transfers of Rs. 32,500/- made on 08/12/2017, 08/12/2017 and 23/03/2018 in the account of plaintiff by defendant no. 1 as 'arrears of salary' and nothing else. It is further noted that the said transactions have also not been reflected in ledger account Ex. DW-1/7 and DW-1/8 (Colly) which again create doubts about the CS No.999/2018 Page 23 of 37 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09 18:31:54 +0530 genuineness of the said documents as well as Profit & Loss Account Ex. DW-1/9.
31. It is an ordinary practice as well as legal requirement for the company or establishment to maintain employees' attendance register.
DW-1 during his cross-examination recorded on 29/02/2024 has deposed that "We maintain the attendance register of our staff." He further voluntarily deposed that "I do not remember whether the company has maintained the attendance register for the relevant period when plaintiff worked in the company." It is highly unbelievable that if the defendant No. 1 company was not maintaining the attendance register during the relevant period than how defendants were calculating and giving salaries to his staff/ employees. The attendance register is a material piece of evidence which would have proved that plaintiff have not worked with defendants since June, 2017 but non- production of the same create doubts on the version of defendants. An adverse inference is drawn against defendants on account of non- production of attendance register for the relevant period, maintained during the ordinary course. Moreover, payment of Rs. 32,500/- each on 08/12/2017, 08/12/2017 and 23/03/2018 respectively in the account of plaintiff by defendant no. 1 clearly establish that plaintiff had worked with defendants even after June, 2017 i.e. at least till March, 2018.
32. In view of the above observations and discussions, this Court CS No.999/2018 Page 24 of 37 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09 18:31:58 +0530 comes to the conclusion that defendants have failed to produce any cogent, reliable and positive evidence to prove that plaintiff was absenting from the work since June, 2017 as alleged in the written statement and therefore, the version of plaintiff that he worked with defendant no.1 till 09/04/2018 is found to be probable. Issue no. 1 is accordingly decided against defendants and in favour of LRs of plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 2:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs.13,49,783/- as sought in the plaint? OPP
33. The employer-employee relationship between defendant no. 1 and plaintiff is not in dispute. However, Plaintiff claims that he was appointed in the defendant no. 1 company vide Deputation Letter dated 30/12/2009 Ex. PW-1/6 and Appointment Letter dated 04/01/2010 Ex. PW-1/7 and on the other side, defendants claimed that plaintiff was made a regular and salaried employee of the defendant no. 1 company in the year 2013 at the monthly salary of Rs. 28,500/-.
34. The defendants have further claimed that the Appointment letter dated 22/02/2002 issued by Pushp India Packaging Ex. PW-1/4, Joining Letter dated 30/12/2005 issued by Muskan Packaging (P) Ltd. Ex. PW-1/5, Deputation Letter dated 30/12/2009 issued by Muskan Packaging (P) Ltd. Ex. PW-1/6 and Appointment Letter dated 04/01/2010 Ex. PW-1/7 are forged and fabricated documents and the plaintiff, being the accountant, has misappropriated the letter heads of CS No.999/2018 Page 25 of 37 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09 18:32:03 +0530 Pushp India Packaging, Muskan Packaging (P) Ltd. and Mangumal Packaging (P) Ltd. and created the said documents. It is further pleaded by the defendants that they came to know about the said forgery only through the present suit. It is pertinent to mention here that defendants have not made any complaint against plaintiff before police till date regarding the alleged forgery. It is strange that a person commits forgery with the motive and purpose for gaining wrongful gains from his employer but despite the discovery of forgery, the employer did not take any action against its erstwhile employee. The arguments of defendants that they do not file any complaint against plaintiff on humanitarian ground is not found to be convincing and probable particularly when the act of plaintiff may cause monetary losses to the defendants.
35. The defendants have not disputed the letter heads and stamps of Ex. PW-1/4 to PW-1/7. It is noted that defendants in their written statement have also not specifically disputed the signatures of Proprietor of M/s Pushp India Packaging on Ex. PW-1/4, signatures of director namely Sh. Pradeep Kumar of M/s Muskan Packaging (P) Ltd. on Ex. PW-1/5 and Ex. PW-1/6 and signatures of director of M/s Mangumal Packaging (P) Ltd. on Ex. PW-1/7. Mere pleading that the documents Ex. PW-1/4 to Ex. PW-1/7 have been forged would be no avail for the defendants. The onus to prove the forgery in respect to documents Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/7 is upon the defendants. DW-1 has not specifically disputed his signatures on Ex.PW-1/5 to Ex.PW-
CS No.999/2018 Page 26 of 37
Digitally
signed by
DEEPANKER
DEEPANKER MOHAN
MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09
18:32:07
+0530
1/7 in the written statement. The defendants have also not produced the admitted signatures of Sh. Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal for the relevant period for comparison and to prove the forgery. It is further worth-while to mention here that defendants have also not taken the opinion of a handwriting expert in support of his case. As the defendants have not produced the admitted signatures of Sh. Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal for the relevant period on record, therefore, this Court cannot exercise its power provided under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is further worth-while to mention here that it is not the duty of the Court to collect evidences for the parties. The duty of the Court is to find truth by appreciating evidence led by the parties. If any party fails to take steps for proving his case/ pleadings then he/she cannot cast the said duty upon the Court particularly when the said query was raised/put by the Court itself during the course of final argument.
36. The matters pertaining to finance and accounts of the company are very crucial and important and the same are given to a person who is well equipped with the said knowledge, expertise and have vast experiences in the said field. The defendants would have considered the plaintiff for the post of senior accountant in defendant no. 1 company only when they were satisfied with the working of plaintiff. However, it is unbelievable that defendants have appointed plaintiff as Senior Accountant in defendant no. 1 company without any documentation in writing. It is improbable that the company like CS No.999/2018 Page 27 of 37 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09 18:32:12 +0530 defendant no.1, having a turnover in crores, would appoint an employee on regularly basis without issuance of appointment letter or have no documentation in writing in respect of the appointment of plaintiff.
37. The defendants have disputed the existence and execution of Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/7 on the ground of forgery and misappropriation and it is upon the defendants to prove the same by adducing reliable and positive evidence. Considering the material on record, this Court is of the view that defendants have failed to produce any cogent, reliable and affirmative evidence to prove forgery in respect to the documents Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/7.
38. The defendants also pleaded that only in the year 2013, plaintiff was appointed as regular and salaried employee of defendant no. 1 on a monthly salary of Rs. 28,500/-. It is pertinent to mention here that defendants have not mentioned the specific date and month when did the plaintiff was appointed as Senior Accountant in defendant no. 1 company. It is pertinent to mention here that defendants have also not placed the attendance register maintained by defendant no.1 during the ordinary course, for the relevant period to prove that plaintiff was appointed in the year 2013. The defendants have also not filed the Profits and Loss Accounts, balance sheets, ledgers and other corroborative documents of the defendant no. 1 company prepared and maintained during the period from 2010 to 2013 to establish that CS No.999/2018 Page 28 of 37 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09 18:32:17 +0530 plaintiff was appointed as regular and salaried employee of defendant no.1 company only in the year 2013 and not prior to that. The defendants admit that plaintiff was working with them since 2003- 2004 however, it has been further pleaded that the said engagement was on contractual part time basis. The defendants have not placed any documentary proof or vouchers which would have been prepared at the time of making payment to plaintiff for his services taken on part time/contract basis. The defendants would have entered the said payments into its expenses while preparing the balance sheet and profit and loss account. The defendants have also not placed any document on record to establish that the services of plaintiff taken by defendants since 2003-2004 was on contract/ part time basis.
39. The plaintiff claims that he joined the defendant no.1 company on 04/01/2010 as Senior Accountant as per Appointment Letter Ex.PW-1/7 and the same was issued by the defendant no.1 company. The defendants also admit that plaintiff was working for them since 2003-2004 but they have failed to produce any document on record to show that the services/ employment of plaintiff was part time/ on contract basis. The defendants have also not disputed the letter head on which Appointment letter Ex.PW-1/7 is printed and the stamp of defendant no.1 company on it. The defendants in their written statement, have also not disputed the signatures of Sh. Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal, director of defendant no.1 company on Ex.PW-1/7. The defendants have also not filed any complaint against plaintiff with CS No.999/2018 Page 29 of 37 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09 18:32:22 +0530 police regarding the alleged forgery. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, conduct of the defendants and above observations, the probabilities that plaintiff was working with defendant no. 1 company w.e.f. 04/01/2010, cannot be ruled out. Moreover, PW-1A has proved the document Ex.PW-1/7 in accordance with law, however, defendants have not produced any cogent, reliable and independent evidence to create doubts upon the genuineness of the appointment Letter Ex.PW-1/7.
40. Considering the above discussions and observations and also considering the findings of this Court on Issue no.1, this Court concludes that plaintiff was under the employment of defendant no.1 as Senior Accountant w.e.f. 04/01/2010 till 09/04/2018. The LRs of the plaintiff are entitled for the arrears of salary @ Rs.32,500/- per month for the period of 8 months and 9 days which comes to Rs. 2,70,833/- because plaintiff has received Rs.32,500/- each in his account on 08/12/2017, 08/12/2017 and 23/03/2018 (i.e. 3 months salary).
41. The LRs of the plaintiff are also entitled for the salary of 2 months @ Rs.32,500/- because plaintiff was terminated from the employment/services on 09/04/2018 by defendants without serving him prior notice as required under the law as well as terms and condition mentioned in Appointment Letter Ex.PW-1/7. The LRs of the plaintiff are also entitled for the amount of Rs.32,500/- as bonus for the year 2017-2018 because plaintiff has worked with defendants CS No.999/2018 Page 30 of 37 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09 18:32:27 +0530 till 09/04/2018 and he was terminated by the defendants.
42. This Court has concluded that plaintiff was under the regular employment of defendant No.1 w.e.f. 04/01/2010 till 09/04/2018, which clearly means that plaintiff had continuously worked with defendant no. 1 for more than 5 years prior to his termination. The defendants plead that plaintiff was not entitled for gratuity as the same is not applicable to him, however, defendants never pleaded in their written statement that defendant no. 1 company does not come under the ambit of law of gratuity. It is worth-while to mention here that as per document Ex.DW-1/4 (Colly), defendant No.1 was having 12 employees apart from plaintiff during the period of April, 2017 to September, 2017 which clearly establish that defendant No.1 was having more than 10 employees employed at the relevant time. Though the defendants have not proved the document Ex.DW-1/4 (Colly) in accordance with law and the said document along-with document Ex.DW-1/5 (Colly) are also self-serving documents. The defendants have not called the officials from the office of Employees' State Insurance Corporation to prove the documents Ex.PW-1/4 (Colly) and Ex.PW-1/5 (Colly). The documents Ex.PW-1/4 (Colly) and Ex.PW-1/5 (Colly) also does not bear the acknowledgment to show that the said documents were filed by defendants with ESI Corporation. The defendants have not filed any corroborative material on record in support of the documents Ex.PW-1/4 (Colly) and Ex.PW- 1/5 (Colly).
CS No.999/2018 Page 31 of 37
Digitally
signed by
DEEPANKER
DEEPANKER MOHAN
MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09
18:32:32
+0530
43. The defendants have not filed the attendance register maintained by defendant no.1 company for the relevant time to show that he was working with the strength of less than 10 employees during the period from 04/01/2010 to 09/04/2018. Non production of the attendance register for the relevant period is fatal for the case of defendants. An adverse inference is drawn against defendants for non- production of such a material piece of evidence.
44. In view of the above discussion, this Court concludes that LRs of the plaintiff are entitled for gratuity for the period of 8 years i.e. from 04/01/2010 to 09/04/2018, under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which comes to Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs. 32,500/ 26 X 15 X 8). The LRs of the plaintiff are not entitled for gratuity for the total period of 15 years as claimed because defendant no.1 is a distinct legal entity than Pushp India Packaging and Muskan Packaging (P) Ltd. and the employment of plaintiff with defendant no.1 has commenced only w.e.f. 04/01/2010. The defendant no.1 company cannot be held liable to pay gratuity for the period of plaintiff's employment with Pushp India Packaging and Muskan Packaging (P) Ltd. despite the fact that all the entities had common shareholders/ promoters. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in "Sudhir Chandra Sarkar versus TATA Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. & Ors", (D.O.D.: 27/03/1984), 1984 (3) SCC 369, this Court has jurisdiction to grant/pass money decree to recover the amount of gratuity, against defendants.
CS No.999/2018 Page 32 of 37
Digitally
signed by
DEEPANKER
DEEPANKER MOHAN
MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09
18:32:36
+0530
45. The plaintiff has not claimed the benefits under the Employees' State Insurance Corporation because he was not entitled for the same and therefore, this Court is not discussing the arguments of defendants on this aspect.
46. The Plaintiff has also claimed an amount of Rs.5,56,250/- towards Provident Funds allegedly deducted by defendants but not deposited with the competent authority. The Plaintiff has not mentioned his Provident Fund Account number allegedly opened with the authority, in the plaint. The Plaintiff had worked with the defendant No.1 company as Senior Accountant for almost 8 years and since 2003-2004 with defendants in their other entities. Admittedly all the accounts of the defendants' companies including defendant no.1 was maintained by the plaintiff, therefore, it would be probable to believe that if the amount is deducted by defendant No.1 company from the salary of its employees including plaintiff for the purpose of Provident Funds, then the same was calculated by the plaintiff and the particulars of the Provident Funds account numbers of all the employees including plaintiff would be in the knowledge of plaintiff but strangely, in the present case, plaintiff, being the accountant, has not disclosed his Provident Fund account number in the plaint. The Plaintiff has also not produced any material on record during trial to show that his EPF account was got opened through defendants and the same is also in existence. It is improbable and unbelievable that plaintiff, being the Senior Accountant of defendant No.1 and CS No.999/2018 Page 33 of 37 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09 18:32:41 +0530 accountant of defendants' other entities, was unaware about his Provident Funds account number since 2003-2004 or 2002 or 2010 particularly when he claims that he is entitled for Provident Funds as per law and his contribution towards PF was also deducted from his salary. The document Ex.PW-1/4 to PW-1/6 does not mention that plaintiff would be entitled for Provident Funds during his employment with Pushp India Packaging and M/s Muskan Packaging (P) Ltd. Only in Appointment Letter Ex.PW-1/7 it has been mentioned that Plaintiff would also get the benefit of PF. The plaintiff worked with defendant no.1, being Senior Accountant, for more than 8 years and managed & accounted all the accounts and day to day transactions of defendant no.1 and if any contributions of the employees including plaintiff and employers i.e. defendant no.1 was deducted and further not deposited in the Provident fund accounts with the competent authority, then the same shall be in the knowledge of the plaintiff. It cannot be believed that any contribution deducted from the salary of employees including plaintiff for depositing the same in Provident Fund accounts along- with contribution of defendant no.1 but further not deposited, was not in the knowledge of plaintiff. The Plaintiff has never raised objection with defendants for not providing the benefit of Provident funds facility during the course of his employment. It would be probable that plaintiff has not raised objection with defendants for getting the benefit of provident fund facility during the course of his employment because he was not entitled for the same. The conduct of the plaintiff creates probable doubt to believe that plaintiff was entitled for the CS No.999/2018 Page 34 of 37 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09 18:32:46 +0530 benefit of Provident fund facility. In view of the above discussion and observation, this Court concludes that Plaintiff was never granted the benefit of Provident Funds facility during the period his employment with defendant no.1, therefore, LRs of the plaintiff are not entitled for the recovery of Rs.5,56,250/- against defendants. The said relief of recovery qua Provident Funds is denied.
47. The documents Ex.DW-1/4 to DW-1/10 and Ex.DW-1/12 to DW-1/15 have not been proved by the defendants as required under the law and moreover, no corroborative material has been produced to proof the said documents. The documents filed and relied along-with documents i.e. ITRs Ex.DW-1/11 and Ex.DW-1/16 are the photocopies and the same have also not been proved as per law. The defendants have not called/got summoned the officials from the Income Tax department and ROC to prove the afore-said documents. Moreover, entries and transactions mentioned in the documents Ex.DW-1/6 to DW-1/10, DW-1/12 to DW-1/15 are contradictory and not in consistent with the entries & transactions mentioned in ITRs and its supportive photocopied documents Ex.DW-1/11 and Ex.DW- 1/16. The certificate Ex.DW-1/17 also does not fulfil the requirements which are required to prove electronic record. Moreover, the defendants have also not examined the person who had feed the said entries and operated the computer system during the relevant time to prove the documents and electronic data/record.
CS No.999/2018 Page 35 of 37
Digitally
signed by
DEEPANKER
DEEPANKER MOHAN
MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09
18:32:50
+0530
48. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and above discussions, this Court concludes that LRs of the Plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs.2,70,833/- towards arrears of salary, Rs. 65,000/- for not giving mandatory notice of 2 months prior to the termination of plaintiff, Rs.32,500/- towards bonus for the year 2017- 2018 and Rs.1,50,000/- towards payment of Gratuity. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of LRs of plaintiff and against defendants.
ISSUE NO.3:- If the Issue no.2 is answered in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
49. As the Issue no.2 has been decided in favour of LRs of plaintiff and against defendants, therefore, this Court concludes that LRs of plaintiff are also entitled for interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,18,333/- from the date of institution of present suit till the date of its realization. The rate of interest @ 9% per annum would be an appropriate interest to be awarded because the defendants have withheld the terminal/retirement benefits of deceased plaintiff without any just cause despite receipt of the legal notice Ex.PW1/9 and have utilized the same into their business. Issue no.3 is accordingly decided in favour of LRs of plaintiff and against defendants.
Relief/Final judgment CS No.999/2018 Page 36 of 37 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.01.09 18:32:55 +0530
50. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and above observations, the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed and it is held that the LRs of plaintiff are entitled for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,18,333/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present case i.e. 29.10.2018 till the date of its realization, against defendants. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of LRs of plaintiff. The present suit is accordingly partly decreed with cost.
51. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
52. The present suit is accordingly decreed and disposed off.
53. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed DEEPANKER by DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date: 2025.01.09 18:33:02 +0530 Announced in the open Court (DEEPANKER MOHAN) on this 9th day of January, 2025 DISTRICT JUDGE-04, SHAHDARA DISTRICT KKD Courts, Delhi CS No.999/2018 Page 37 of 37