Delhi District Court
Narain Lal Bundela vs M/S Tata Consultancy Services Limited on 11 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. APOORV SARVARIA, CIVIL JUDGE14,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Unique Case ID No. : 02401C0108732006
Suit No. : 879/15
Narain Lal Bundela
S/o Sh. G.R. Bundela,
R/o B138/1 MIG Glats
East of Kailash
New Delhi110065 ...... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. M/s Tata consultancy Services Limited
Previously Known as
M/s Computer Maintenance Corporation Limited
(M/s C.M.C. Limited)
Registered office at
CMC Centre, Old Mumbai Highway,
Gachibowli, Hyderabad500032
Service to be affected though its
Company Secretary Mr. Vivek Agarwal/
Managing Director/Authorized Representative.
2. General Manager
M/s Tata Consultancy Services Limited
Previously Known as
M/s Computer Maintenance Corporation Limited
(M/s C.M.C. Limited)
Registered office at
CMC Centre, Old Mumbai Highway,
Gachibowli, Hyderabad500032.
3. D.G.M.
M/s Tata Consultancy Services Limited
Suit No. 879/15
Narain Lal Bundela v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Page No. 1 of 23
Previously Known as
M/s Computer Maintenance Corporation Limited
(M/s C.M.C. Limited)
Registered Office at
CMC Centre, Old Mumbai Highway,
Gachibowli, Hyderabad500032...... DEFENDANTS
Date of institution of suit : 15.02.2006
Date of reserving Judgment : 25.01.2016
Date of pronouncement : 11.02.2016
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, MANDATORY INJUNCTION AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION WITH CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF
JUDGMENT
1. In the present suit, the plaintiff has prayed for the following relief:
"(a) To pass a decree of declaration in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants and the plaintiff may be declared promoted from the date of his next promotion due after the year 1994 alongwith all consequential benefits for relevant period.
(b) To also pass a decree of mandatory injunction and thereby direct the defendants to restore the ranking of the plaintiff from Rank 2 to Rank 1 which was prior to 1994 since nothing adverse order stands in against the plaintiff till date for reduction of his rank from Rank1 to Rank2 on record.
(c) Decree of permanent injunction against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants not to transfer the plaintiff from Delhi Suit No. 879/15 Narain Lal Bundela v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Page No. 2 of 23 office till his retirement which is due almost after two years and status quo be maintained in respect of present post of the plaintiff."
Plaintiff's case
2. It is stated in the plaint that presently the plaintiff is working with the defendant no.1 and posted at Executive Cadre at Delhi Office of the defendant no.1.
3. It is further stated that defendant no.1 is a Public Limited company duly incorporated and registered under the provisions of Companies Act, and Managing Director/CEO is the responsible person/Head of defendant no.1 looking after the Management and Control of the defendant no.1. Defendant no.2 is the General Manager of defendant no.1 and defendant no.3 is the Deputy General Manager of Defendant no.1. Defendants nos. 2 and 3 are the responsible persons to lookafter, control and management of the employment of plaintiff.
4. It is further stated that the defendant no.1 was earlier a Government Undertaking/Enterprise within the control of Govt. of India. Defendant no.1 Company was disinvested and partly taken over by M/s Tata Sons Limited. Since the formation and management of the defendant no.1 is at present within the hands of M/s Tata Sons Limited with some shares of Govt. of India therefore, the status and nature of the company is of a public limited company.
Suit No. 879/15Narain Lal Bundela v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Page No. 3 of 23
5. It is further stated that the plaintiff was appointed as an Associate office assistant vide appointment letter dated 01.01.1979 with defendant no.1 on regular basis and pay scale but no detailed service conditions or promotion criteria has been defined in the said letter of appointment and further no detailed terms of employment of the plaintiff has been given in the said appointment letter. It was assured orally by the defendants to provide the same during the course of his employment but till date inspite of repeated demands of requests the terms of employment have not been handed over to the plaintiff by the defendants. The last letter was written in this regard by the plaintiff to the defendants on 17.08.2001 referring to previous representation also but till date defendants have not responded.
6. It is further stated that the services of the plaintiff were found satisfactory and after confirming the same, the plaintiff was promoted w.e.f. 01.07.1981 to the post of office Assistant by the defendant no.1. The plaintiff had again been promoted to the post of office coordinator w.e.f. 01.12.1985 and his salary was also revised with Basic Pay of Rs. 1040/ in the scale of Rs. 9001500/. The plaintiff was again promoted to the post of Senior Administrative Coordinator and he was placed in the grade of Rs.9751650/ with the revised basic pay of Rs. 1230/.
7. It is further stated that the salary of the plaintiff was being revised from time to time almost on yearly basis. The letters were issued by Suit No. 879/15 Narain Lal Bundela v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Page No. 4 of 23 the defendant no.1 regarding revision of salary of the plaintiff dated 28.02.1989, 27.02.1989, 20.07.1990, 08.10.1991 and 25.05.1992 when the salary was revised to Rs. 2390/ in the scale of Rs. 18602985/ w.e.f. 01.02.1992 while the same was again revised to Rs. 1615/ w.e.f. 01.08.1994 in the same scale.
8. It is further stated that in a similar manner, the salary of the plaintiff was again revised vide letter dated 23.04.1996, 09.09.1998, while the same was twice revised with effect from 01.07.1998 and 01.04.1999 vide two letters of revision, both dated 25.06.1999. The salary of the plaintiff had last been revised w.e.f. 01.01.2000 with basic of Rs. 6705/ in the scale of Rs. 19007180/ vide letter dated 21.01.2001.
9. It is further stated that the defendants had failed to revise the salary of the plaintiff thereafter although the same had become due at least twice after 01.01.2000. However, after a representation sent by the plaintiff, the defendant no.1 granted two revisions to the plaintiff in the grade of Rs. 8640/ to Rs. 14600/ to the basic of Rs. 12,180/ w.e.f. 01.12.2000 and Rs. 12,430/ w.e.f. 01.12.2001 vide letter dated 03.05.2002.
10.It is further stated that since his appointment with the defendants, the plaintiff has been performing his duties, responsibility and assignment with full dedication, sincerity and honesty and to the Suit No. 879/15 Narain Lal Bundela v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Page No. 5 of 23 entire satisfaction of the authority including his superior and supervisors. There had been no complaint or grievance of any person of any nature whatsoever and he had never been served any charge sheet or memo. However, in order to harass the plaintiff, the defendants sent a notice dated 24.08.2000 to the plaintiff with false allegations of missing of a laptop which was duly replied by the plaintiff on 29.10.2001 and the net result of the said proceedings came out in the form of a warning to the plaintiff by defendant. It is stated that the said proceedings have no weightage over the performance and personal file of the employment of the plaintiff.
11. It is further stated that the defendants had been regularly appreciating and recognizing the overall conduct, performance efficiency, capability, honesty, sincerity, dedication, skill and faithfulness of the plaintiff towards his work and the defendant no.1 had duly appreciated and recognized the same by issuing a number of appreciation letters, certificates and by giving awards in recognition thereof to the plaintiff during 23 years of his service.
12.It is further stated that from the above facts, documents and circumstances, it is clear that the plaintiff had been given promotions and revisions of pay almost every year while he was elevated to the next higher position based on his overall performance and seniority after every 11/2 to 4 years. The plaintiff had last been promoted on 01.08.1994 from the post of Non Suit No. 879/15 Narain Lal Bundela v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Page No. 6 of 23 Executive to Executive (E1) but ever since the said last promotion in 1994, the defendants have not granted any promotion to the plaintiff till date and the plaintiff has consequently been working in the same post of Executive (E1) since 1994. It is stated that when service of the plaintiff was lastly promoted the rating given was no.1 by the then Manager Mr. D.R. Thadani but the said rating was subsequently and illegally changed from Rating 1 to rating 2 by Mr. K.C. Rehani, the then Regional Manager (AG). To the knowledge of the plaintiff, the said rating had been changed from rating 1 to rating 2 on the recommendation and advice of defendant no.1. The factum of change came to the knowledge of the plaintiff much later and when he inquired to find out the reasons for such change, the defendants had failed to give any reason, explanation or clarification to the plaintiff. It is further stated that there has not been any Personal Development Review (PDR) since 1994, when rating was given by the then Manager and also when the same had been changed to Rating 2 without any reason and as such, since 1994, the case of the plaintiff had not been considered at all by the defendant no.1 for promotion being granted to the plaintiff who has been denied the same since 1994 and continues to hold the same post since then.
13.It is further stated that plaintiff belongs to SC Category and this is the sole reason that the petitioner became eye sore in the eyes of defendants nos. 2 and 3/Management and at all important times he Suit No. 879/15 Narain Lal Bundela v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Page No. 7 of 23 was humiliated and disregarded by the Management and in order to save his bread and butter the plaintiff had no occasion but to bear all these things for the safety of his employment. It is stated that the defendants were in preparation for creating false ground of termination that resulted in the plaintiff suffering from heart attack twice but the defendants least care for the trouble of the plaintiff though the defendants were showing sympathy from outside. Another examination of plaintiff's victimisation in the hands of defendants is stated that before filing the suit the plaintiff was suffering heart problem and confined to bed as per the advice of the doctors but on the other hand the Management was bent upon to send a letter to him on 16.11.2005 to show his performance within three months otherwise he will be terminated.
14. It is stated that the following persons were promoted from Non Executive to Executive in the year 1995.
(1) Vineet Kochhar (Accounts)
(2) Rajesh Bakshi (Indolent Group)
(3) Rajeev Ranjan (Indolent Group)
(4) Rajat Tooli (Indolent Group)
(5) Sridhan (Accounts)
(6) Kapil Kapoor (Personnel Executive)
(7) Sabita Gupta.
Suit No. 879/15
Narain Lal Bundela v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Page No. 8 of 23
15.The plaintiff was also interviewed alongwith the above mentioned persons for promotion from non executive to executive. The plaintiff was also promoted from Non executive and was given E1, Grade 40007150 with effect from 01.08.1994 where as the above mentioned persons were given E1 with effect from 1995.
16.It is further stated that all the persons except plaintiff were given two promotions upto September, 2001 and they are at present in Grade E3. All the persons became Senior Manager by designation but inspite of the best performance, the plaintiff was not promoted and still working on the same grade E1 and on the same designation since 1994. However, the defendants revised the scale of pay of the plaintiff time to time lastly vide letter dated 03.05.2002 w.e.f. December, 1, 2001 onwards.
17. It is stated that in aforesaid manner the defendants had not considered the case of the plaintiff for promotion. It is further stated that the plaintiff had been prejudicially affected by the wrongful change of Rating I to Rating II and also by the subsequent failure of the defendants to consider the case of the plaintiff for his promotion after 1994 till date.
18.It is further stated that consequent upon the above mentioned situation, the plaintiff has suffered a lot in terms of his position, grade and pay scale, increment and other consequential perks and Suit No. 879/15 Narain Lal Bundela v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Page No. 9 of 23 allowances related thereto because of illegal change of his Rating from 1 to 2 in the year 1994 as mentioned above. Besides, the plaintiff had also suffered for nonconsideration of his case by the defendant no.1 after 1994 till date for grant of promotion which the defendant had been doing till 1994 and plaintiff was being promoted from time to time during the last 27 years of service. It is also submitted that the plaintiff could have got at least two promotions after 1994 by now.
19.It is further stated that the defendants have thus acted in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner by not considering the case of the plaintiff for the last about 11 years and by not setting aside the change of rating of the plaintiff from 1 to 2 which had been illegally done in the year 1994.
20.It is further stated that the defendant no.1 which is working for and under the control of Management of the defendant no.2 and 3 were under legal duty to consider the case of the plaintiff.
21. It is further stated that the acts of omission and commission on the part of the defendant no.1 tantamount to causing serious harassment and hardship to the plaintiff who has even been denied the opportunity of being heard, much against the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience.
Suit No. 879/15Narain Lal Bundela v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Page No. 10 of 23
22.It is stated that the defendants have failed to retrace their step even after repeated written requests by the plaintiff and also despite the service of legal notice dated 13.03.2002 served on the defendants. The defendants had not promoted the plaintiff since 1994 whereas in the year 1995 seven employees of defendants having identical and equal status of the plaintiff were promoted by the defendant in the year 1995. Therefore, the plaintiff has been discriminated by the defendants only on the ground that he belongs to Schedule Caste and no reply has been given to his representations to the defendants made from time to time. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, the plaintiff states that he is entitled for decree of declaration and the plaintiff may be declared promoted from the date of his next promotion due after 1994 along with all consequential benefits for relevant period.
23.It is further stated that the plaintiff is on medical leave till 15.02.2006 and prior to this medical rest, the plaintiff was hail and hearty but the defendants informed the plaintiff either to take voluntary retirement or he shall be transferred to J&K. On receiving the said letter, the plaintiff could not continue with his good health and suffered heart problem and thereafter was confined to bed. The plaintiff is on medical rest till 15.02.2006. The plaintiff apprehends that he will be transferred to J&K if he does not take voluntary retirement after resuming his duties.
Suit No. 879/15Narain Lal Bundela v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Page No. 11 of 23
24.It is further stated that the plaintiff is also entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendants to restore the ranking of the plaintiff from Rank 2 to Rank 1 which was prior to 1994 since nothing adverse order stands in against the plaintiff till date for reduction of his rank from Rank1 to Rank2 on record.
25.It is further stated that the plaintiff was not aware of the status of defendant Company as Government company or Private company, therefore, the plaintiff had filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 3562/2002 complaining about his exclusion for promotion to E3 Grade and upon the dismissal of the said writ petition, the plaintiff had filed an appeal in the form of Letters Patent Appeal which had also been dismissed vide order dated 02.12.2003. However, a liberty was granted to the plaintiff to seek appropriate remedy provided under the law by the Hon'ble High Court.
26.It is further stated that on the advice of counsel, plaintiff accepted that he should go on to file an SLP for seeking relief on merits but the Hon'ble Supreme court too dismissed the S.L.P. of the plaintiff. However, no order on merit was passed. Therefore, the liberty granted by the Hon'ble High Court remained as it is and the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking appropriate remedy before the Competent Court of jurisdiction. Hence, the present suit.
Suit No. 879/15Narain Lal Bundela v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Page No. 12 of 23 Defendants' Case
27. In the written statement, the defendants have stated that there is no cause of action. There is no right in favour of any employee working in an executive cadre of a public company to enforce or claim promotion either through statutory or in common law. Matters relating to promotion and of transfer of officers in such employer companies is the sole prerogative and discretion of the management of the employer. The defendant company is not a Government Company or PSU against which the plaintiff can claim timebound promotions and parity as a matter of routine. It is stated that the defendant company is no more called "Computer Maintenance Corporation Ltd.". The defendant company had this name when it was incorporated as a PSU owned wholly by the Government of India. The company now is wholly disinvested and the Government has no shares or control in the management of the defendant company. The company now is simply called CMC Ltd. The majority shareholding in the defendant company and its complete control and management is held by Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., a private limited company. Merit, performance, educational qualifications, high values, unblemished behaviour etc. are extremely important requirements against the backdrop of which the management considers suitability or otherwise of promotion of any employee.
Suit No. 879/15Narain Lal Bundela v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Page No. 13 of 23
28.It is further stated the suit is even otherwise barred by limitation under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff admittedly seeks promotion denied to him in the year 1994 and to that effect has prayed for change of rating from rank 1 to rank 2 in 1994. The suit is, therefore, hopelessly barred by limitation by over 8 years.
29.It is further stated that the plaintiff had deliberately suppressed proper valuation of the suit to escape payment of court fee. The plaintiff has sought all promotions with consequential benefits as other employees named by him. In other words, the plaintiff seeks declaration with consequential relief in terms of arrears of salary etc. which he is clearly in a position to assess as on date. However, the plaintiff has neglected to assess the total monetary value of such consequential relief/benefits claimed by him at par with other officials and mention that in the plaint just to avoid payment of court fee. The plaintiff has valued his suit at merely Rs. 740/ to avoid payment of court fee.
30.It is stated that it is settled law that courts will not ordinarily interfere with matters of assessing the suitability or otherwise of an employee for promotion. The plaintiff cannot deny that judging such suitability is the prerogative and discretion of the employer and such technical assessment of an employee is best left to the management.
Suit No. 879/15Narain Lal Bundela v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Page No. 14 of 23 The same is the case in matters relating to transfers and postings of an employee by his employer.
31. It is further stated that the plaintiff is incompetent and of doubtful integrity and, in the assessment of the management of the defendant company, unfit for giving any promotion. Consistently low ratings in the Performance Development Reviews (PDRs); gross and regular unauthorized absenteeism; insubordination, condemnable behaviour with fellow staff and seniors, poor academic background and consistent failure on deliverables do not make the plaintiff a fit case for promotion. There have been several incidents in the past where the plaintiff has indulged in unparliamentary and abusive language with his colleagues and seniors and entered into physical fights. There have also been incidents where the plaintiff tried to play fraud on the accounts department of the defendant by making claims for false reimbursement. Claiming LTC for family for outstation travel and medical reimbursement for treatment of his wife in the same overlapping period is one such incident. The plaintiff, admittedly was issued a warning letter by the General Manager in the case of missing computer laptop in his charge.
32.It is further stated that despite not qualifying for promotion for the aforesaid reasons after 1994, the plaintiff has still been getting upward revisions in salary the last admittedly being vide letter dated 03.05.2002 of the defendant revising basic pay of the plaintiff to Rs.
Suit No. 879/15Narain Lal Bundela v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Page No. 15 of 23 12,430/. The plaintiff, at the time of joining the defendant, was working as a "messenger" with his erstwhile employer. The plaintiff was appointed in service of the defendant in the nonexecutive cadre at a salary of approx. 350 p.m. The plaintiff was not even a graduate and had simply passed intermediate and that too in second division. The plaintiff instead of being grateful to the defendant company for being ultimately promoted to the Executive Cadre from non executive through a series of promotions till 1995 and for getting handsome revisions in salary time to time has unfortunately opted to find fault with his employer for no rhyme or reason and has burdened the defendants with false and misconceived litigations on several occasions in the past.
33.It is denied that the plaintiff had been given promotions and revisions of pay almost every year. The plaintiff had got promotion whenever he was found to be eligible as per his performance. It is stated that the plaintiff cannot claim promotion as a matter of right. It is the prerogative and discretion of management. It is denied that the change of rating from 1 to 2 was in any manner illegal as alleged. It is denied that the rating was changed because of any advice from defendant no.1 as alleged.
34.The defendants have denied the allegation that there has not been any Personal Development Review (PDR) of the plaintiff since 1994. It is stated that such was the conduct of the plaintiff for his Suit No. 879/15 Narain Lal Bundela v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Page No. 16 of 23 superiors that the plaintiff would often refuse to sign the PDR prepared for him, in case the ratings given to him did not satisfy him. The plaintiff was always reading the PDR but having read the same would leave without appending his signatures thereon. For instance, the plaintiff refused to sign the PDR for the period of rating 30.06.2001 which is placed on record under which he had got a low rating of "4". Prior to this, a PDR was carried out on 27.06.1997 which again the plaintiff refused to sign as the rating of 3 and 4 did not suit him. In fact, in this PDR Mr. S.K. Biswas, Regional Manager noted on the PDR sheet that the PDR was discussed with the plaintiff two times. However, it was further stated that the plaintiff declined to put his signatures thereon as he was not satisfied with the ratings therein. The said PDR for the year 1997 is also placed on record. The falsity of the allegations of the plaintiff is, therefore, exposed. The plaintiff is guilty of misleading this Court with false averments only to get sympathy. If the promotion has been denied to the plaintiff, it is wholly on account of his consistently low rating in his PDRs; gross unauthorized absenteeism, insubordination, condemnable behaviour with fellow staff and seniors and consistent failure on deliverables with which the plaintiff's record is replete.
35.Replication was filed to the written statement.
Suit No. 879/15Narain Lal Bundela v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Page No. 17 of 23 Issues
36. On 19.12.2006, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendants? OPD
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD
3. Whether plaintiff has not valued the suit properly for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP
5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for ? OPP
6. Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
7. Relief.
Evidence led by parties
37. Plaintiff produced himself as PW1 and tendered his evidence affidavit Ex. PW1/A along with documents Ex. PW1/1 to PW1/61 and Mark A to U. Thereafter, PW1 was crossexamined. Thereafter, plaintiff closed the evidence.
38.Defendants produced Sh. Manoj Gupta, Senior Manager, Corporate Legal of the defendant company as DW1 and tendered his evidence affidavit Ex. DW1/A and he relied on documents Ex. DW1/1 to Suit No. 879/15 Narain Lal Bundela v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Page No. 18 of 23 DW1/50 some of which were marked. Thereafter, DW1 was cross examined after which defendants closed the evidence.
39.This Court has heard Ld. Advocates for parties and perused the record. During arguments, Ld. Advocate for plaintiff submitted that plaintiff is not pressing the relief of permanent injunction in relation to his transfer from the Delhi office as presently, the plaintiff has retired from the services.
Findings
40.Issuewise findings of this Court are as under:
Issue no. 1: Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendants? OPD
41. Onus to prove this issue is on the defendants. Defendants have not led any evidence to prove this issue. Therefore, defendants have failed to discharge the onus to prove the issue. Hence, issue is decided against the defendants.
Issue no. 2: Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD
42. Onus to prove this issue is on the defendants. Since the plaintiff has not pressed the relief of permanent injunction prayed in the suit at Suit No. 879/15 Narain Lal Bundela v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Page No. 19 of 23 this stage, the other two reliefs which are left are the relief of declaration whereby plaintiff seeks that he may be declared promoted from the year 1994 along with all consequential benefits. The second relief is of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the ranking of plaintiff from rank 2 to rank 1 which was prior to the year 1994. Both these reliefs have been sought in relation to the year 1994. The prescribed period of limitation for the reliefs of declaration and mandatory injunction as prayed is of three years (Article 58, 113 of the Limitation Act). However, the present suit has been filed in the year 2006 i.e. almost after 12 years from the date of accrual of cause of action. Ld. Advocate for plaintiff submitted that the time period taken in the writ petition filed by the plaintiff may be excluded for computing the limitation. The writ petition was filed by the plaintiff admittedly in the year 2002 (bearing CW No. 3562/2002) which got dismissed on 30.05.2002. Thereafter, the LPA was dismissed on 02.12.2003 and the SLP was dismissed on 05.05.2004. Section 14 (1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 states that in computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. Admittedly, the writ petition was not filed Suit No. 879/15 Narain Lal Bundela v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Page No. 20 of 23 within three years from the accrual of cause of action which was in the year 1994. The plaintiff should have instituted the civil proceedings (suit or writ) by the year 1997 to claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. However, the writ petition was filed in the year 2002 and the plaintiff cannot take benefit of the same as even if we exclude the period from the year 2002 onwards for computing the period of limitation, there is no explanation why the proceedings were not initiated by the plaintiff by the year 1997 i.e. within three years. Therefore, defendants have succeeded in proving this issue and the suit is clearly barred by the law of limitation and is time barred. Issue is decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
Issue no. 3: Whether plaintiff has not valued the suit properly for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD
43.Onus to prove this issue is on the defendants. Defendants have not led any evidence to prove this issue. Therefore, defendants have failed to discharge the onus to prove the issue. Hence, issue is decided against the defendants.
Issue no. 4: Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP
44.Onus to prove this issue is on the plaintiff. While dealing with issue no. 2, Court has already found that suit is time barred. Even otherwise, plaintiff has concealed material facts in the plaint by Suit No. 879/15 Narain Lal Bundela v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Page No. 21 of 23 stating in para 12 that there has been no personal development review (PDR) since 1994. However, in the written statement defendants have stated that PDRs were made after the year 1994 and they have stated that plaintiff refused to sign the same as the rating in the year 2001 was a low rating of 4 and in the year 1997 also plaintiff refused to sign the PDR. In the replication, the plaintiff has not denied that these ratings were not given which clearly suggests that PDR were given to the plaintiff post 1994 and the plaintiff has falsely represented that no PDR were made after 1994. On this ground also, the plaintiff is not entitled to discretionary and equitable relief of declaration as prayed. Moreover, there is merit in the contention of the defendants that it is prerogative of the employer to promote or not to promote a particular employee and discretion should be left to the employer itself. The plaintiff has admitted in the plaint that the terms of the employment were not shown to him and, therefore, plaintiff has not been able to prove on what basis he is seeking the relief of declaration as the adverse PDRs made against him were at the discretion of the employer and the same cannot be reviewed by merely approaching the court. Therefore, for all the above reasons, plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed. Issue is decided against the plaintiff.
Issue no. 5: Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for ? OPP
45.Onus to prove this issue is on the plaintiff. While dealing with issue Suit No. 879/15 Narain Lal Bundela v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Page No. 22 of 23 no. 2, Court has already found that suit is time barred. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed. Even otherwise, the relief of restoring the ranking of the plaintiff from rating 2 to rating 1 cannot be granted for the reasons already specified while dealing with issue no. 4. Therefore, issue is decided against the plaintiff.
Issue no. 6: Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
46.Onus to prove this issue is on the plaintiff. The relief of permanent injunction was not pressed since the plaintiff has already retired from the service and the relief sought has become infructuous. Accordingly, this issue is struck off.
Issue no. 7: Relief
47. In view of the findings of this Court on the above issues, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as prayed. The suit is dismissed alongwith costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court Apoorv Sarvaria,
on the day 11th February, 2016 Civil Judge14, Central,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Suit No. 879/15
Narain Lal Bundela v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Page No. 23 of 23