Bangalore District Court
Ratnesh Pandey vs Wipro Enterprises Private Limited on 23 July, 2024
KABC010391602019
IN THE COURT OF THE XX ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE(CCH-32), BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 23rd day of July 2024
Present:
Sri.Sirajuddeen A., B.A., LL.B.,
XX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.No.9492/2019
Plaintiff: Sri.Ratnesh Pandey,
S/o.Sri.R.N.Pandey,
Aged about 45 years,
Residing at Tulip 102,
RPS Green Valley Sec 41,
Faridabad-121010.
(By Sri.Raghuram Cadambi,
Advocate.)
/VS/
Defendant: Wipro Enterprises Private Limited,
Having its registered office at
'C' Block, CCLG Division,
Doddakannelli, Sarjapur Road,
Bengaluru - 560 035.
Represented by its Managing Director.
(By Sri.Rohit R.Kukreja,
Advocate.)
2 O.S.No.9492/2019
Institution of the suit: 21.12.2019
Nature of suit : Money Suit.
Date of commencement of
recording of evidence : 20.11.2021
Date on which Judgment
pronounced : 23.07.2024
Total Duration : Years Months Days
04 07 02
(Sirajuddeen A.),
XX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff instituted this suit against defendant for recovery of money.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that, he was appointed as a territory Manager in the defendant company vide appointment letter dated 5.10.2005. During his tenure of employment, he was transferred to Hyderabad to oversee much larger market and recognizing his business acumen within a span of 10 months, he was promoted as Area Manager and transferred to Delhi from Hyderabad. Thereafter he was given charge of North as Zonal Manager and he was nominated by Wipro to pursue Management development programme Tier-1 at IIM Ahmedabad in February 2013. He was also promoted as Regional 3 O.S.No.9492/2019 Manager after achieving ever high revenue benchmark for two consecutive two years. The plaintiff after having served with the defendant company for over 12 years, decided to pursue other avenues. Accordingly, on 6.8.2017, he tendered his resignation to the defendant company. The defendant company by its letter dated 18.09.2017 accepted the resignation of the plaintiff and in recognition of his valuable contribution towards the growth and success of the defendant company, offered to pay the plaintiff an ex gratia lump sum amount to the tune of Rs.6,32,000/- after eighteen months from the date of cessation, subject to certain conditions. The defendant company by way of the same letter, also indicated to the plaintiff that 19.8.2017 was the last working day with the defendant company (then date of Cessation). He was relieved from all duties and responsibilities from the defendant company on 19.7.2017. Pursuant to the plaintiff's resignation from the defendant company on 19.7.2017 and the letter dated 18.9.2017 issued by the defendant company, the plaintiff on 8.12.2017 received a sum of Rs.5,32,493/- towards full and final settlement.
3. Plaintiff further pleaded that, as there is a substantial difference between the actual amount paid and the amount that was to be paid to him, the plaintiff by way of a email dated 30.01.2018 made inquiries regarding the same with the HR department of the defendant company. The defendant company issued a reply dated 5.2.2018 clarifying that the payment of Employment Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP)/Wipro Employees' Rewards 4 O.S.No.9492/2019 Programme (WERP) is subject to compliance of the terms as stated in the defendant's letter dated 18.9.2017. The plaintiff on 18.11.2017 by RPAD communicated to the defendant company, regarding his acceptance and acknowledgment of the terms and conditions contained in the letter dated 18.9.2017. Therefore, in terms of the letter dated 18.11.2017, the plaintiff was entitled to the payment of the ex gratia amount.
4. Plaintiff further pleaded that, on 30.1.2018 issued an email calling upon the defendant to make payment towards WERP. The defendant on 5.2.2018 issued a reply informing that, the payment to be made towards WERP was part of the ex gratia and that the same would be made to the plaintiff after the completion of 18 months from the date of cessation (i.e. 19.8.2017), as well as compliance of the other conditions laid down in the defendant's letter dated 18.9.2017. The defendant by way of this email, acknowledged the subsistence and validity of the contract between the parties as set out in the defendant's letter dated 18.9.2017. Therefore, the defendant was liable to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.6,32,000/- as on 19.2.2019. Threafter, since the plaintiff has not received the ex gratia amount as stipulated, he issued several reminders to the defendant to pay the amount. The defendant issued a communication dated 9.3.2019 informing that, since the plaintiff had not accepted and acknowledged the terms and conditions of the letter dated 18.9.2017, he was not entitled to receive the amount. Hence, the plaintiff on 21.3.2019 once again wrote to the defendant company communicating 5 O.S.No.9492/2019 his acceptance and acknowledgement of the terms and conditions of the letter dated 18.9.2017. For that, the defendant company issued a reply dated 26.3.2019 stating that, as the plaintiff had not accepted and acknowledged the terms and conditions set out in the letter dated 18.9.2017, the amount would not be paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff at no point during the 18 months from the date of cessation has breached the terms and conditions set out in the letter dated 18.9.2017. The actions of the defendant are fraudulent, malafide and illegal.
5. Plaintiff further also contended that, the cause of action for the suit arose on 19.2.2019 when the defendant was liable to pay a sum of Rs.6,32,000/- and all the subsequent days during which the defendant was failed to pay the plaintiff. Plaintiff also contended that the corporate office of the defendant as well as the registered office of defendant are situated in Bangalore. Therefore, this court is having jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. Accordingly, plaintiff prayed to decree the suit as prayed for.
6. This court issued the summons to the defendant and in response, defendant appeared through its counsel and defended the suit by filing written statement contending inter-alia that, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. Defendant admittd that the plaintiff had enquired vide email dated 30.01.2018 about the ex gratia payment. The defendant vide email dated 5.2.2018 clarified to the plaintiff that as per the Cessation Letter, the 6 O.S.No.9492/2019 payment will be made after 18 months from the date of cessation and only upon acceptance of the terms and conditions of the Cessation Letter. Defendant denied the receipt of any RPAD communication dated 18.11.2017 acknowledging acceptance of the terms and conditions of letter dated 18.9.2017. Defendant contended that, the assumption by the plaintiff that implied consent or acceptance without there being express consent through placement of signature as acknowledgement and acceptance of terms and conditions of Cessation letter is not maintainable. The plaintiff even after reminded by the defendant company's representative to acknowledge the Cessation Letter with terms and conditions dated 18.9.2017 failed to do so. Since the plaintiff has not accepted the terms and conditions of the said Cessation Letter till date, the plaintiff is not entitled for payment of the ex-gratia lump sum amount of Rs.6,32,000/-. Defendant has never received any communication of the acceptance of the cessation letter. Therefore, the defendant in no way is obliged to assume that the plaintiff has concurred to accept the terms and conditions of the letter of cessation. Due to the ignorance and misconception of the plaintiff of having accepted the terms and conditions of the said Cessation Letter, the frivolous suit has come to be filed by the plaintiff.
7. Defendant further contended that, under the general principles of Contractual Law, offer forms an important pre requisite for any Contract or Contractual Obligations between the parties to the Contract, hence, the 7 O.S.No.9492/2019 non-acceptance of the terms and conditions of the said Cessation Letter does not amount to fulfill the requirement of a Contract. Thereby there is no obligation on the part of the defendant to pay the ex-gratia lump sum amount. There is no cause of action in the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Therefore the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly defendant prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary cost.
8. In the light of the above said rival pleadings of both parties, my learned predecessor in office has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is entitled for a sum of Rs.6,32,000/- as stipulated in letter dated 18.9.2017?
2. What order or decree?
9. The burden of proof of issue No.1 is on plaintiff. In order to discharge the said burden of proof, plaintiff adduced oral evidence and also produced the documentary evidence. Plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and also got marked the documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 to P.11.
10. Ex.P.1 is the appointment letter dated 29.8.2005, Ex.P.2 is the letter dated 7.8.2012 issued by the defendant company, Ex.P.3 is the digital letter dated 3.8.2012, Ex.P.4 is the digital letter dated 1.10.2014, Ex.P.5 is the certificate of appreciation, Ex.P.6 is the Email conversations, Ex.P.7 is the letter dated 18.9.2017, Ex.P.8 is the email conversations, Ex.P.9 is the letter dated 24.4.2019 and 8 O.S.No.9492/2019 Ex.P.10 is the Certificate by way of Affidavit u/s 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Ex.P.11 is the Power of Attorney.
11. Defendant in order to discharge its implied onus cross-examined P.W-1. The Senior Manager of the defendant company is examined as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D.1-Letter of authority dated 2.1.2024 and Ex.D.2- Notarized copy of the Circular Resolution No.11/23-24 dated 11.12.2023.
12. Counsel for the plaintiff relied the following citations:
1. Bhagwati Prasad Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 311 (Para 17 and 19);
2. The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. M/s.Dewa Properties, (2015) 2 LW 889;
3. Relevant extracts from Indian Contract and Specific Relief Act by Pollock and Mulla under Section 8 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872;
4. M/s.Simens Limited Vs. M/s.Nova Iron & Steel Limited, ILR (2008) II Delhi 753 (Para 10 and 11);
5. Manchester Diocesan Council for Education Vs. Commercial and General Investments Limited, 1969 1 WLR 241;
6. Lohia Properties Limited Vs. Atmaram Kumar, (1993) 4 SCC 6 (Para 15); and
7. Thangam and Another Vs. Navamani Ammal (2024) 4 SCC 247 (Para 25 and 28).9 O.S.No.9492/2019
13. Counsel for the defendant relied the following citations:
1. Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia Vs. M/s.Giridharilal Parshottamdas and Co. AIR 1966 SC 543;
2. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. Vs. The U.P. State Electricity Board AIR 1973 ALL 263;
3. National Textile Corporation (M.P.) Vs. M.R.Jhadav AIR 2008 SC 2449.
14. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for both parties.
15. I have carefully perused the pleadings of both parties, oral evidence adduced and documentary evidence produced and perused other materials available on record and also perused the authorities relied.
16. My answers and findings to the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1- Partly in the Affirmative; Issue No.2- As per the order passed for the following REASON S
17. ISSUE NO.1: In this case plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money for the tune of Rs.6,32,000/- along with 18% p.a. interest from the date of 19.02.2019 till the date of final payment. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was worked in the defendant company for the period of 12 years and he tendered his resignation on 06.08.2017 and his resignation was accepted by the company as per letter dated 10 O.S.No.9492/2019 18.09.2017 and in recognition of his valuable contribution towards growth and success of the defendant company, offered to pay the plaintiff an ex-gratia lump sum amount to the tune of Rs.6,32,000/- as per Ex.P.7 subject to the conditions mentioned therein. The further case of the plaintiff is that, though he had accepted the terms and conditions of Ex.P.7, the defendant not paid the said amount and denying to pay the said amount stating that the plaintiff has not made acceptance as stipulated in Ex.P.7.
18. The defence of the defendant is that, the plaintiff has not accepted the terms of Ex.P.7 as stipulated therein. As such, he is not entitle the said ex-gratia amount.
19. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1 and re-iterated the entire plaint averments in his affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in- chief. He has produced the documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 to P.10. In order to disprove the defendant's case, the authorised representative of the defendant company is examined as D.W.1.
20. The counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendant admitted the acceptance of terms and conditions by plaintiff as per Ex.P.9. In Ex.P.9 there is recital stating that even though we received your back-dated acceptance on 22.03.2019. It itself shows that the plaintiff accepted the Ex.P.7. He further argued that the plaintiff accepted the terms of the Contract as per Ex.P.7 and he accepted the terms of Ex.P.7 by conduct also. The counsel for the plaintiff further argued that as per Section 7 of the Indian 11 O.S.No.9492/2019 Contract Act, 1872, the acceptance must be absolute and unqualified. It reads as under:
7. Acceptance must be absolute.--
In order to convert a proposal into a promise the acceptance must--
(1)be absolute and unqualified; (2)be expressed in some usual and reasonable manner, unless the proposal prescribes the manner in which it is to be accepted. If the proposal prescribes a manner in which it is to be accepted, and the acceptance is not made in such manner, the proposer may, within a reasonable time after the acceptance is communicated to him, insist that his proposal shall be accepted in the prescribed manner, and not otherwise; but, if he fails to do so, he accepts the acceptance".
21. Counsel for the plaintiff further also argued that, the plaintiff accepted by performing conditions or receiving consideration. Ex.P.7 does not specified any mode of acceptance. It appears that there is no specific denial of acceptance as in para No.'n' page No.5, in the written statement it is stated that, the defendant states that, had the plaintiff conveyed the acceptance of the said Cessation Letter issued by the defendant by issuing either an email or a letter the defendant would have been more than willing to release the said ex-gratia lump sum amount to the plaintiff.
12 O.S.No.9492/201922. Counsel the defendant argued that the plaintiff does not accepted the terms of Ex.P.7 as stipulated in Ex.P.7. The last line of Ex.P.7 is the mode of acceptance. Only at the time of evidence, signed copy of Ex.P.7 was produced. Ex.P.7 is accepted only after 18 months and the copy of Ex.P.7 produced along with the plaint does not bear the signature of the plaintiff for having acceptance and the plaintiff not accepted the conditions in terms of Section 3 of the Contract Act, 1872.
3. Communication, acceptance and revocation of proposals.--
The communication of proposals, the acceptance of proposals, and the revocation of proposals and acceptances, respectively, are deemed to be made by any act or omission of the party proposing, accepting or revoking, by which he intends to communicate such proposal, acceptance or revocation, or which has the effect of communicating it.
23. By perusing the contents of plaint and written statement and the documents produced by the parties and the arguments, there is no dispute with regard to the employment of the plaintiff in the defendant company and there is no dispute with regard to resignation by the plaintiff and there is also no dispute with respect to issuance of Ex.P.7. The only dispute is with regard to acceptance of Ex.P.7 and its communication to defendant. The contention of plaintiff is that he has accepted the terms of Ex.P.7 by 13 O.S.No.9492/2019 conduct as well as in writing and there is no stipulated mode of acceptance. The acceptance of the defendant in the last line of Ex.P.7 itself have made stipulation of mode of acceptance. The plaintiff in para No.13 of the plaint pleaded that, he has communicated the acceptance on 18.11.2017 by RPAD to the defendant company.
24. On perusal of Ex.P.7 in the last line of Ex.P.7, it contains stipulation as 'please sign on a copy of this agreement in token of your acceptance of the terms above and return to us for records. There is no time line fixed for the acceptance of Ex.P.7. It shows that Ex.P.7 shall be returned for record purpose. Admittedly the plaintiff had returned the copy of Ex.P.7. Said fact is admitted by the defendant stating that, 'eventhough we received your back dated acceptance on 22nd Mar, 2019'. It clarifies that the plaintiff has accepted Ex.P.7. Moreover, in the cross- examination of D.W.1, he also admitted that in Ex.P.7 time period for communicating the acceptance is not stipulated.
25. It is not the case of the defendant that, the plaintiff violated the terms and conditions of Ex.P.7 and in the cross-examination, D.W.1 also stated that, we have no information whether the plaintiff has worked for the company mentioned in Clause 4 of Ex.P.7. We have not taken any contention that, the plaintiff has not complied the Clause 2 to 4 of Ex.P.7 in our written statement.
26. As per Ex.P.7, the signed copy of acceptance is ought to be returned for record purpose. Hence this court 14 O.S.No.9492/2019 finds that if the plaintiff is slight delay in communication of the acceptance of Ex.P.7, it does not have any consequence. Hence, it cannot disentitle the plaintiff from claiming the ex- gratia amount of Rs.6,32,000/- as per Ex.P.7. If there is unreasonable delay of 3 years, then only it can be denied to the plaintiff. Hence, this court finds that the plaintiff is entitle to the amount claimed in the plaint.
27. Plaintiff claiming the amount of Rs.6,32,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 19.02.2019 till the date of final payment by the defendant. Plaintiff is claiming rate of interest exorbitantly. Therefore, plaintiff is not justified in claiming 18% p.a. of interest. However, plaintiff is entitled to claim interest at 10% p.a. With these observations, my answer to Issue No.2 is Partly in Affirmative.
28. ISSUE NO.2: In view of my findings on Issue No.1 and discussions made thereon, I proceed to pass the following ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with costs.
Defendant is hereby directed to pay Rs.6,32,000/- to the plaintiff with a rate of interest at 10% p.a. from 19.02.2019 to till realization of the entire amount.
15 O.S.No.9492/2019Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer on computer, computerised by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on the 23 rd day of July 2024).
(Sirajuddeen A.), XX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the Plaintiff:
P.W.1: Sri.Ratnesh Pandey.
List of documents marked for the Plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 Appointment letter dated 29.8.2005.
Ex.P.2 Letter dated 7.8.2012 issued by the defendant company.
Ex.P.3 Digital letter dated 3.8.2012.
Ex.P.4 Digital letter dated 1.10.2014.
Ex.P.5 Certificate of appreciation. Ex.P.6 Email conversations. Ex.P.7 Letter dated 18.9.2017. Ex.P.8 Email conversations. Ex.P.9 Letter dated 24.4.2019.
Ex.P.10 Certificate by way of Affidavit u/s 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Ex.P.11 Power of Attorney.16 O.S.No.9492/2019
List of witnesses examined for the defendant:
D.W.1: Sri.Abhishek Jha.
List of documents marked for the defendant:
Ex.D.1 Letter of authority dated 2.1.2024.
Ex.D.2 Notarized copy of the circular resolution No.11/23-24 dated 11.12.2023.
(Sirajuddeen A.), XX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.17 O.S.No.9492/2019
Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate judgment).
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with costs.
Defendant is hereby directed to pay Rs.6,32,000/- to the plaintiff with a rate of 18 O.S.No.9492/2019 interest at 10% p.a. from 19.02.2019 to till realization of the entire amount.
Draw decree accordingly.
XX ADDL.C.C. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.19 O.S.No.9492/2019