Bangalore District Court
Indrima Bhattacharya vs Energia Well Being Pvt Ltd on 21 February, 2025
KABC010068662020
IN THE COURT OF THE LVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH - 57)
:Present :
Sri.Jai Shankar, B.Sc., LL.M.,
LVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 21st Day of February, 2025.
O.S.No.1796/2020
PLAINTIFFS 1. Ms.Indrima Bhattacharya
D/o Commander Indranil
Bhattacharya (Retd.)
Aged about 25 years,,,
R/at Kala Bhairava Apartment
Thippasandra,
Bengaluru
(By Sri. V.K.B. Advocate)
- Vs.
DEFENDANTS 1. Energia Well Being Pvt Ltd
Represented by Director
Ms.Ambereen Pradhan,
Benefile Business House,
LA, 126 Mathuradas Mill,
Compound, NM Joshi Marg,
Lower Parel,
Mumbai-400013
(By Sri.K.S.H. Advocate)
2 O.S.No.1796/2020
Date of institution of the : 06.03.2020
suit
Nature of the suit : Suit for Damages/ Compensation
Date of commencement of : 15.06.2024
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 21.02.2025
Judgment was
pronounced.
Total duration : Years/s month/s Day/s
04 11 15
*******
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of arrears of salary and TA amounting to Rs.28,177/- and compensation of Rs.25,000/-, in all a sum of Rs.64,344/- along with interest at the rate of 18% from the suit till realization.
2. Brief averments of the plaint are as follows:
That the plaintiff was hired by the defendant Company through offer letter dated 20.05.2018 as 3 O.S.No.1796/2020 Consultant Psychologist, SOI Practitioner and Trainer at and her gross salary was fixed at Rs.25,000/-. The plaintiff joined the office on 02.07.2018 and she performed her duty with at most punctuality without any lapse till 01.07.2018. Later, the plaintiff was subjected to sexual harassment by one Senior Psychologist who is the employee of the defendant Company during August 2018. Since there was no Internal Complaint Committee as per POSH Act, the plaintiff reported the case to Ms.Ambereen Pradhan over telephone. The defendant Company did not choose to take any action on her complaint. Thereafter, job profile of the plaintiff was changed and she was asked to sell programs to parents and to get business for defendant Company instead of shadowing students for which she was hired for. This forced her to submit resignation on 01.11.2018 with one month notice as per the guidelines of the defendant Company. On 30.11.2018, she was asked to work for one additional 4 O.S.No.1796/2020 day on 01.12.2018 and she was relieved by issue of relieving letter at 5.00 p.m. on that day. The plaintiff was informed verbally that her full and final settlement would be completed within one month from the last day in office. On 13.12.2018, she sent an e-mail and requested a confirmation regarding the same and though she sent 9 e-mails between the period from 13.12.2018 to 18.01.2019, there was no response from the defendant Company. Again on 23.04.2019, she sent a letter by register post followed by e-mail dated 27.04.2019. On 17.05.2019, the defendant Company responded and they remained silent about non-payment of dues. The defendant Company falsely accused the plaintiff for professional incompetence, absenteeism, missing during office hours, indiscipline and made personal attacks on her hygiene. The defendant Company falsely claimed that the plaintiff was absent for 6 days, she put less hours of work for 5 days and she did not clock out on 14 days, 5 O.S.No.1796/2020 which totals up to 25 instances in November 2018. In reality, the plaintiff had been on a pre-approved leave for
3 days in November 2018 and barring that she was neither absent nor did she put less number of hours of work. The plaintiff was never show caused or counselled for any of the accusation which was made in their e-mail. The affirmations are mere afterthoughts to intimidate the plaintiff and to justify the delay in payment of dues. The defendant has falsely submitted to the IT department that salary of the plaintiff for November 2018 is credited and even it has deposited TDS to Income Tax Department The defendant Company has wrongfully deducted a sum of Rs.4,459/-. The defendant Company is due in a sum of Rs.28,177/- towards the salary and T.A. The plaintiff has been mentally harassed to battle for a sum of Rs.4,459/. The defendant Company has flouted the contractual obligations by changing the job profile and also by not paying the amount due to the plaintiff. Hence, 6 O.S.No.1796/2020 the plaintiff got issued the legal notice to the defendant directing them to pay the arrears of salary of Rs.28,177/- also a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation. Inspite of notice, the amount is not paid. Hence, this suit.
3. After issuance of summons, the defendant Company has appeared through its Counsel and has filed written statement and contended as follows:-
That the suit is false, frivolous, vexatious and is not maintainable in law. The plaintiff has suppressed the material facts and she has not come to the court with clean hands. The suit is ill-motivated, deceitful and it is filed with an intention to make illegal gains. The intention of the plaintiff is to cause irreparable reputational loss to the defendant Company and it is a strategy to extract money. The defendant Company is a certified start up Indian registered Company having its registered office at Mumbai. The defendant Company is dealing with children mental health and cognitive 7 O.S.No.1796/2020 development part of the education for the neuro diverse population of slow learner children and has active works with many schools in India and in 40+ international countries. The defendant has an untarnished reputation and is a law-abiding citizen of the country. It is led by a woman Director and Entrepreneur Ms.Ambereen Pradhan. It is false that the defendant Company did not consider delicate matter of sexual harassment very seriously. The averments made in para 3 of the plaint is partially true. It is true that the plaintiff joined the defendant Company on 01.07.2018 and submitted her resignation on 01.11.2018 and she was relieved on 01.12.2018. The averments made in para 4 are false. The plaintiff had been inconsistent work and taken unplanned leaves at multiple instances. Her monthly compensation was also cut in the month of October 2018 for unauthorized leave. The amount with respect to October 2018 was created to the plaintiff on 10.11.2018. 8 O.S.No.1796/2020
The plaintiff was warned of her behaviors and other activities by her team leader for her repeated unexplained absence, during contract period. The plaintiff was found unethically transferring the data of the defendant Company to her personal e-mail. Such breach of confidential data put the Company to economic and reputational risk. For such behavior, the plaintiff had in writing apologized the defendant Company as well. The allegations made in the plaint are afterthought and without any basis. The suit is filed only to harass and defame the defendant Company and to damage their reputation. The averments made in para 5 are also false. The defendant Company had not received any form of communication from the plaintiff by any source. Neither a person's name who has committed the alleged offence nor the details of the offence or any other information regarding alleged sexual harassment is intimated to the Company. The job profile of the plaintiff was never 9 O.S.No.1796/2020 changed after joining the organization and during her short tenure with the Company. The defendant Company has paid the TDS to the Income Tax Authority and it never withheld the monthly contract payment and it had no intention to hold the full and final settlement amount. The plaintiff has intentionally demanded a higher amount which was not due to her as she had taken unapproved leave during the notice month period. Hence, the full and final settlement including Travel allowance was kept on hold as the plaintiff had disputed the amount. The defendant has explained the basis of calculation and has asked the plaintiff to submit proof of leave or leave approval in writing. The plaintiff has not submitted any medical certificate/ emergency reason for taking such unannounced leave as well. The plaintiff has responded in writing that she would like to discuss the same verbally over phone and not in writing. The defendant Company has explained to the plaintiff that 10 O.S.No.1796/2020 verbal explanation is not acceptable. Instead of submitting any evidence, the plaintiff was unprofessional and rude in her communication and she has submitted that she would not have any proof of leave. The plaintiff had multiple attendance and competency issue while she was working in the defendant Company. The plaintiff has framed a false story to get illegal gain and to disrepute the defendant Company. The plaintiff had also filed a complaint against the defendant Company with the Income Tax Ombudsman and IT department query was raised and it was fully and satisfactorily responded by the defendant Company. It is false that the plaintiff is entitled for Rs.28,177/- towards arrears of salary with interest. The averments made in para 11 to 16 are also false. The plaintiff is not entitled for any claim. On all these grounds, the defendant Company has prayed to dismiss the suit.
11 O.S.No.1796/2020
4. Based on the above pleadings, my learned Predecessor has framed the following issues :-
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant have appointed as a Consultant Psychologist and SOI Practitioner and Trainer at the defendant firm?
3) Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendant are liable to pay Rs.28,177/- towards arrears of salary and TA and Rs.25,000/- as compensation and defendant is due an amount of Rs.64,344/?
4) Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff filed the present suit on created documents?
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for?
6) What order or decree?
Recasted Issue No.2:
1) Whether the plaintiff further proves that she was subjected to sexual harassment by one Sr. Psychologist another employee of the defendant in the month of August 2018?12 O.S.No.1796/2020
Additional Issue No.1
1) Whether the plaintiff further proves that the plaintiff is entitled to an interest of 18% from the date of filing this suit till realization and costs incurred in filing this case?
5. In order to prove her case, the plaintiff has examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked 9 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.9. The Director of the defendant Company has examined herself as D.W.1 and got marked 9 documents as Ex.D.1 to 9.
6. I have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials on record. Having regard to the arguments heard and the materials on record, I answer the above issues as hereunder :
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Re-casted Issue No.2 : In the Negative
Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative
13 O.S.No.1796/2020
Issue No.4 : In the Negative
Issue No.5 : Partly in the Affirmative
Addl. Issue No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.6 : As per the final order
for the following;
REASONS
7. Issue No.1 : It is the case of the plaintiff that the she was hired by the defendant Company through offer letter dated 20.05.2018 as Consultant Psychologist, SOI Practitioner and Trainer at and her gross salary was fixed at Rs.25,000/-. She joined the office of the defendant Company on 02.07.2018. The plaintiff who is examined as P.W.1 has reiterated the above facts in her examination in chief. In support of her oral evidence, she has got marked the copy of the offer letter issued by the defendant Company as Ex.P.1. It is clearly mentioned in Ex.P.1 that the plaintiff is appointed as "PSYCHOLOGIST|ENERGIA SOI PRACTITIONER AND TRAINER". The defendant Company has also admitted 14 O.S.No.1796/2020 the said fact in para 7(b) of its written statement. As such, there is no dispute regarding the same. Hence, I answer this issue in the Affirmative.
8. Recasted Issue No.2 : It is alleged by the plaintiff at para 5 of the plaintiff that she was subjected to sexual harassment by one Senior Psychologist, another employee of the defendant Company during the month of August 2018 and she reported the same to Ms.Ambereen Pradhan telephonically and no action was taken. The plaintiff who is examined as P.W.1 has reiterated the said fact in her examination in chief. The defendant Company has denied the same by contending in its written statement that it has not received any form of communication from the plaintiff through any source. The said Ms.Ambreen Pradhan who is the Director of the defendant Company who has been examined as D.W.1 has also stated in her examination in chief that it is totally a wrong allegation and no such incident has taken 15 O.S.No.1796/2020 place. The plaintiff who is examined as P.W.1 has stated in her cross examination that she has no proof with regard to the sexual harassment by one Senior Psychologist. She has further stated that she did not lodge any complaint to the police or to the defendant Company in writing. The plaintiff has also not examined any witness to prove the same nor produced any documents in support of her contention. In the absence of any oral or documentary evidence, it is difficult to believe the allegation made by the plaintiff regarding the sexual harassment. Hence, I answer this issue in the negative.
9. Issues No.3 and 4 : Since these two issues are interconnected they are taken up for discussion together to avoid repetition. As observed above, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff joined the defendant Company on 02.07.2018 as Consultant Psychologist, SOI Practitioner and Trainer and her gross salary was fixed at 16 O.S.No.1796/2020 Rs.25,000/-. The plaintiff who is examined as P.W.1 has reiterated the said fact in her examination in chief and the same is not disputed by the defendant Company. Both P.W.1 and D.W.1 have got marked the offer letter as Ex.P.1 and Ex.D.1 in which it is stated that the salary of the plaintiff is Rs.3,00,000/- p.a which is Rs.25,000/- p.m. It is also mentioned in the said document that the travel allowance is Rs.24,000/- or actual whichever is less. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff worked in the defendant Company from 02.07.2018 till 01.12.2018. The plaintiff has stated about the same in her evidence. She has also got marked the relieving letter as Ex.P.2. The Director of the defendant Company who is examined as D.W.1 has also got marked the relieving letter as Ex.D.4. As such, there is no dispute regarding the fact that the plaintiff worked from July 2018 till 1 st of December 2018. There is also no dispute that the salary of the plaintiff is paid up to the month of October 2018. 17 O.S.No.1796/2020 The only dispute is regarding the salary for the month of November 2018. The plaintiff has stated in her evidence that she worked for the entire month of November 2018 and also on 01.12.2018 and her salary is not paid. Including the TA, she is entitled for a sum of Rs.28,177/- towards the salary of November 2018. She has further stated that the defendant Company has wrongly deducted Rs.4,459/- as per the F & F statement. The defendant Company has contended that the plaintiff remained absent for duty on 6 days during November 2018 and she had worked for less hours on 5 days and as such after deduction of 7 ½ days, she is entitled for salary of 22 ½ days which amounts to Rs.16,875/-. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for claim of Rs.28,177/-. Though, the defendant Company has contended that plaintiff was on leave for 6 days and she had worked for less hours on 5 days no documents are produced in proof of the same. The plaintiff has stated 18 O.S.No.1796/2020 that she had availed 3 days leave with prior permission during November 2018. The defendant Company has not produced the leave records of the plaintiff. When the defendant Company has taken a specific contention that the plaintiff was absent unauthorizedly on 5 days, they have to prove the same by producing documentary evidence. Though, they have contended that the plaintiff is entitled for Rs.16,875/- in Ex.P.5 which is the letter regarding full and final settlement it is mentioned that the plaintiff is entitled for Rs.21,010/- towards the salary of the month November 2018. It is shown in the said document that along with Rs.16,875/-, the plaintiff is entitled for Rs.4,135/- towards TA and in all she is entitled for Rs.21,010/-. As per Ex.P.2 relieving letter the plaintiff has been relieved with effect from the closing working hours of 5 p.m dated 01.12.2018. As such, the said document issued by the defendant Company clearly show that the plaintiff has worked up to 5 p.m on 19 O.S.No.1796/2020 01.12.2018. As such, the plaintiff is entitled for the salary for the work done on 01.12.2018. Further, there is no mention in the relieving letter regarding the absence of the petitioner or regarding less work done on 5 days. As such, it has to be held that the plaintiff is entitled for the amount of Rs.28,177/- sought by her.
10. As far as the compensation sought by the plaintiff is concerned, the plaintiff has sought for compensation of Rs.25,000/- from the defendant Company. As per Ex.P.5 letter the defendant Company has stated that the amount due to the complainant is Rs.21,010/-. The claim of the complainant is Rs.28,177/-. The difference is around Rs.7,000/-. Though, plaintiff have made several communication through mails as per Ex.P.3 and issued legal notice as per Ex.P.8, the defendant Company has not settled the amount due to her. The case of the complainant is well supported by the documentary evidence. There is nothing 20 O.S.No.1796/2020 on record to show that the plaintiff has filed the suit on created documents. Instead of making payment, the defendant Company has driven the plaintiff to approach the Court which has certainly cause inconvenience to the plaintiff. The same has to be compensated by monetary means. Though, the plaintiff has sought for compensation of Rs.25,000/-, considering the facts and circumstances of the same it is just and proper to direct the defendant Company to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff is entitled for a sum of Rs.28,177/- towards the salary and a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation. In all Rs.43,177/-. Hence, I answer issue No.3 partly in the affirmative and issue 4 in the Negative.
11. Issue No.5 and Addl.Issue No.1:- In view of the above findings on issues No.1, 3 and 4, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of a sum of Rs.43,177/- after deduction of payment made as per Ex.P.5 letter. The 21 O.S.No.1796/2020 plaintiff has sought for interest at the rate of 18% p.a and also the costs of the suit. Since the plaintiff is entitled for a decree, she is entitled for the costs of the suit. As far as interest is concerned, the claim at the rate of 18% is on the higher side. Considering the present day bank interests, it is just and proper to award interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Hence, I answered issue No.5 and Additional Issue No.1 partly in the affirmative.
12 Issue No.6:- In view of findings on issues No. 1 to 5 and additional issue No.2, the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed in part with costs. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part with costs.
The plaintiff is entitled for recovery of a sum of Rs.43,177/- from 22 O.S.No.1796/2020 the defendant Company along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the said amount from the date of suit till realization.
The defendant Company is directed to pay the said amount within 3 months from the date of this order after deduction of amount if any paid to the plaintiff towards the salary of November 2018.
Office is directed to draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her directly on computer and corrected then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st Day of February, 2025) (Jai Shankar) LVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru 23 O.S.No.1796/2020 ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff.
P.W.1 Indrima Bhattacharya
2. Witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants D.W.1 Ms.Ambereen Pradhan
3. Documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff.
Ex.P.1 Copy of offer letter
Ex.P.2 Copy of relieving letter
Ex.P.3 Copies of E-mail Communications made
during December 2018 and January 2019
Ex.P.4 Copy of letter sent to defendant
Ex.P.5 Copy of letter dated 21.05.2019 sent by
defendant Company
Ex.P.6 Form 26AS
Ex.P.7 Legal notice
Ex.P.8 Postal cover
Ex.P.8(a) Cover is opened and notice is marked as
Ex.P.8(a)
24 O.S.No.1796/2020
Ex.P.9 Certificate u/s 65(B) of Indian Evidence
Act.
4. Documents marked on behalf of the defendants.
Ex.D.1 Copy of offer letter dated 28.05.2018 Ex.D.2 Original Contractual agreement Ex.D.3 Copy of resignation letter sent through mail by the plaintiff Ex.D.4 Copy of relieving letter dated 01.12.2018 Ex.D.5 Copy of e-mail dated 22.10.2018 sent by plaintiff Ex.D.6 Copy of e-mail dated 26.10.2018 sent to plaintiff and reply given by her Ex.D.7 Copy of Form No.16 pertaining to plaintiff Ex.D.8 Copy of e-mail dated 06.06.2019 sent by plaintiff and the reply given by the company Ex.D.9 Certificate u/s 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act (Jai Shankar) LVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru 25 O.S.No.1796/2020