Delhi District Court
Brijesh Kumar Vadhera vs Reverse Logistics Company P. Ltd on 30 September, 2024
Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-02, SOUTH, SAKET
COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Presiding Judge: Dr. Yadvender Singh
CS DJ No. 8323/2016
Filing No. 19532/2016
CNR No. DLST01- 001088-2014
In the matter of
Brijesh Kumar Vadhera
S/o Late Sh. V.J. Kishore
R/o Bugalow No. 200, Sector-4
Vaishali-201010
District Ghaziabad
Uttar Pradesh ................Plaintiff
Versus
1. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.
Khasra No. 337, 1st Floor, Chaudhary Satbir Complex
Near CRC-2, Village Sultanpur, MG Road
New Delhi-110030
2. Hitendra Chaturvedi
Khasra No.337, 1st Floor, Chaudhary Satbir Complex
Near CRC-2, Village Sultanpur, MG Road
New Delhi-110030
3. King, Stubb & Kasiva
Advocates & Attorneys
M-147, Greater Kailash-2
New Delhi-110048
CS DJ No. 8323/2016
Page 1 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024
Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
4. Jidesh Kumar
Managing Partner
King, Stubb & Kasiva
M-147, Greater Kailash-2
New Delhi-110048. .............Defendants
Date of Institution : 16.05.2014
Date of reserving the judgment : 12.09.2024
Date of pronouncement : 30.09.2024
Decision : Allowed
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.97,67,613/-(RUPEES NINETY
SEVEN LACS SIXTY SEVEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED
THIRTEEN ONLY) INCLUDING DAMAGES/
COMPENSATION
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the Civil Suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 97,67,613/- including damages/compensation. The brief facts of the case, as per the plaint, are as under:-
1.1. The plaintiff is a B.Com graduate, CA Inter Group-I and an MBA with over 25 years of hardcore Accounts and Finance experiences across manufacturing & retail sectors.
The plaintiff served Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the defendant No.1 as General Manager (Finance). Prior to CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 2 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
employment with defendant No.1, plaintiff served various organization including Super Cassettes Industries Ltd., Samtel India Ltd., Bennett Coleman & Company Ltd., Times Internet Ltd. Etc. The plaintiff has been the top performer throughout with all his employers.
1.2. The defendant No.1 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The defendant No.2 is the Managing Director of the defendant No.1 company and is overall responsible for the affairs of the defendant No. 1 company. The defendant No. 3 is a law firm hired by the defendant No.1 in mid of the year 2012 and defendant No.4 is the Managing Partner of defendant No.3 and over all responsible for the day to day affairs of the the defendant No.3.
1.3. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant No.1 company initially as Deputy General Manager (Finance) in March, 2011 and in a short span of time he was promoted to the level of General Manager (Finance) in view of his performance effective from 01.07.2012. The plaintiff was also given additional responsibility for coordinating on legal matters. While performing the said duties, the plaintiff inter- alia coordinated and interacted with Big 4 Audit and Consulting firms for audit, due diligence, opinions, CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 3 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
consulting, M&A and other matters.
1.4. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant No.1 in March 2011 as Deputy General Manager-Finance. Prior to joining defendant No.1, the plaintiff was working with Times Internet Ltd. (Indiatimes.com) as Chief Manager Accounts where he was working with one Mr. Manish Jain-Company Secretary. Mr. Manish Jain later, joined defendant No.1 initially as consultant and later as CFOR under contract of employment and it was Mr.Manish Jain only, who considering the experience and knowledge of the plaintiff in the field of accounts & finance, approached the plaintiff and offered him a job with defendant No.1 with lucrative benefits. The plaintiff accepted the offer and at the relevant time the plaintiff was asked to furnish certain documents including resignation letter, reference letter etc. as a pre-requisite for joining, which were duly submitted by the plaintiff. However, the defendant No.1 despite repeated requests made by the plaintiff to the defendant No.1, never issued a formal appointment letter. The defendant No.1, provided an official e-mail account bearing [email protected] to the plaintiff, to carry out his day to day work.
1.5. On request made by defendant No.1, the plaintiff CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 4 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
during the tenure of his service with defendant No.1 used his mobile No. 9810034558 (Bharti Airtel) for official purpose and defendant No.1 used to reimburse all the telephone costs to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was additionally looking after the legal and payroll portfolio of defendant No.1. Looking at the services and loyalty of the Plaintiff towards the defendant No.1, defendant No.2 promoted the plaintiff from GDM- Finance to GM-Finance in the month of June 2012 vide e- mail dated 26.06.2012 effective from 01.07.2012 and also rewarded plaintiff with increment, Performance Incentives as loan waiver and promise of 800 Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP). In terms of the said email the plaintiff was clearly promised 800 ESOPS with a vesting period of 4 years. 1.6. On 01.04.2013 the plaintiff was asked to sign and accept "Notice of Stock Option Grant" in respect of only 500 ESOP. Along with the above mentioned notice dated 01.04.2013, the plaintiff was also served with a copy of the Option Agreement. The said notice contained only 500 ESOP which was totally contrary to the promise of 800 ESOP, made vide email dated 26.06.2012. The vesting period of the said ESOPS was increased from 4 years to 6 years. The plaintiff immediately registered its protest before the defendant No.2, CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 5 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
to which, the defendant No.2 in an arrogant manner brushed aside the protest of the plaintiff by saying that the plaintiff may either accept the new decision of defendant No.2 or the option of ESOPS so granted to the plaintiff, shall be withdrawn and the plaintiff may even be asked to leave defendant No.1. The plaintiff succumbed to the pressure and accepted/signed the same.
1.7. In the second half of the year 2012, defendant No.1 had hired the services of defendant No.3 as a legal retainer for the purpose of advising its day to day legal matters/affairs and other legal issues. The plaintiff was interacting with defendant No.3 and its Delhi based staff members on behalf of defendant No.1 for discussing and handling various legal issues of defendant No.1. In August 2013 Mr. Manish Jain, to whom the plaintiff was reporting, resigned from the post of CFO of the defendant No.1. After the resignation of Mr. Manish Jain from the services of defendant No.1, the plaintiff noticed certain discrepancies and anomalies in accounting the internal controls of defendant No.1. The plaintiff immediately brought the said fact to the notice of defendant No.2. The plaintiff was shocked to realize that the defendant No.2 abruptly and in a very threatening manner directed the CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 6 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
plaintiff to ignore the same and continue to discharge his duties and confirmed that the same shall be left on him to manage.
1.8. On 05.08.2013 the defendant No. 2, decided to terminate the monthly retainership agreement with defendant No. 3 with immediate effect. The fact regarding the said termination of the retainership of defendant No. 3 with defendant No.1 was communicated by the plaintiff to the defendant No.3 & 4 on instruction of defendant No.2. 1.9. On 16.10.2013, the defendant No.2, called the plaintiff, to his chamber and informed him about an email dated 15.10.2013 purportedly received by him, from defendant No.4 thereby alleging that he plaintiff has been writing unpleasant, favour seeking and provoking e-mails and sending SMS to a Senior Advocate working with defendant No.3 and further requesting the defendant No.2 to seek an explanation regarding the same from the plaintiff. The said email was marked to a third party bearing one Mr. Ajay Lakhotia (representative of Vertex Investments) and also an investor of defendant No.1. The plaintiff denied having sent any such email / sms or any other form of alleged communication as has been claimed vide purported email CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 7 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
dated 15.10.2013. However, the defendant No. 2 vide its email dated 16.10.2013 send from email ID [email protected] forwarded the email dated 15.10.2013, purportedly received from defendant No.3 to the plaintiff on his official email address and sought explanation on the same.
1.10. That having come to know of the frivolous allegations made vide purported email dated 15.10.2013 from defendant No.4 to defendant No.2, the plaintiff, under apprehension that the email address of the plaintiff may have been hacked, immediately lodged a complaint before the police authorities vide its email dated 16.10.2013 namely to with Cyber Crime (EOW)-Delhi Police; Commissioner-Delhi Police, Joint Commissioner-Delhi Police and Deputy Commissioner (South)-Delhi Police and also send a hard copy of the same vide speed-post dated 16.10.2013 (Complaint) thereby informing them about the said incident and further requesting the police authorities to identify as to whether any hacking of plaintiff's email address and/or mobile number has been taken place, and if yes then to book the unknown culprits in accordance with law. The plaintiff has made two subsequent reminder requests to the police authorities, the said complaint CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 8 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
is pending investigation before the jurisdictional police station.
1.11. The plaintiff in addition to the filing of the above mentioned complaint, upon receipt of the email dated 16.10.2013 immediately responded to the allegations vide its reply e-mail dated 17.10.2013, thereby refuting all the allegations made therein. That in addition to the above, defendant No.1 being an intermediary within the meaning of Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and defendant No.2 being the owner of the domain name greendust.com was immediately notified by the plaintiff, vide its email dated 17.10.2013 sent under Rule 3(4) of the Indian Information Technology (Intermediary guidelines) Rules 2011 read with Section 79 and 85 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 about its liability under the applicable law (Notification).
1.12. That immediately after serving the above mentioned Notification on defendant No.1 & 2, the plaintiff started getting threats and faced harassment and humiliation at the hands of the defendant No.2 in one way or the other on daily basis. The defendant No.2 threatened the plaintiff time and again and started pressurizing the plaintiff to withdraw the CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 9 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
said notification and even abused him on many occasions. 1.13. The defendant No. 2 continued to intimidate the plaintiff by saying as to why the plaintiff was openly confronting a lawyer and further asked him to simply apologies even if he has not committed any such illegal act and look for an alternative job in order to buy peace, to which plaintiff refused. Immediately thereafter on 24.10.2013 one Mr. Sumit Ranjan, suddenly, under instructions of defendant No.2 approached the plaintiff for an enquiry and made an analysis of the log files from the computer being operated by the plaintiff and even mailed the said log files to his own email ID with the copy to the defendant No.2 without giving any prior intimation regarding the same. Although the entire aforesaid act of the defendant No.2 was patently illegal, however, still the plaintiff consented to the same. 1.14. On 28.10.2013 the plaintiff received an email from Ms. Sumpa Nanda thereby sharing the minutes of the meeting dated 24.10.2013 and informing that an inquiry committee has been formed comprising of defendant No.2 and other persons as detailed in the email dated 28.10.2013. The plaintiff vide its email dated 01.11.2013 made a complaint to the Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel-UP West & New Delhi, basis the CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 10 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
allegations made by the defendants, against the plaintiff thereby requesting Bharti Airtel to preserve the records for production of the same with the enforcement agencies for their analysis and investigation. Subsequently the plaintiff was shared with the copy of the minutes of meeting dated 13.10.2013 in terms of which the defendant No.1 had conducted a purported inquiry into the allegations made by the defendant No.4 and found the same to be baseless and unsubstantiated.
1.15. After the plaintiff was absolved of the charges allegedly levelled against him by the defendant No.4, the defendant No.2 and other office colleagues of defendant No.2 started ignoring, sidelining, humiliating and pressurizing the plaintiff to tender resignation in one way or the other. At that time the plaintiff was being pressurized by defendant No.2 and his employees including Ms. Sumpa Nanda to sign an antedated Employment Contract and a Non-Disclosure Agreement with regard to his employment with the defendant No.1, which contained clauses pertaining to non disclosure of the outcome of the inquiry committee and other terms and conditions which were not agreed to by the plaintiff at the time of taking up the employment. At that juncture, the CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 11 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
plaintiff being uncomfortable, under tremendous pressure and under duress, was left with no other option but to resign by tendering resignation through e-mail dated 20.11.2013 to defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 vide e-mail reply dated 20.11.2013 immediately accepted the resignation with a precondition to give a complete handover of all information/documents including electronic media of the company i.e. defendant No.1. Further in the same night the plaintiff received an SMS from ICICI Bank, regarding blocking the update of the ICICI Bank, on plaintiff's mobile and upon inquiries from defendant No.2, the defendant No.2 admitted having got the updates blocked via a return SMS addressed to the plaintiff.
1.16. That immediately on 21.11.2013 the defendant No.1 through its e-mail Administrator and owner of domain name (Greendust.com) being defendant No.2, took control over the subject email ID ([email protected]) from the plaintiff by changing its password and consequently the plaintiff's aforementioned official email ID could not be accessed by him. However, on account of the illness of the father-in-law of the plaintiff, the plaintiff could not visit the office of the defendant No.1 for handover of the assets on CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 12 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
21.11.2013 and even thereafter on 26.11.2013. It was on 29.11.2013 that all the assets including Laptop, data card, Office keys and Identity card were handed over to Mr. Puneet Gupta of defendant No.2, against the due acknowledgment and in this regard an e-mail was also sent by the plaintiff from his personal email ID to Ms. Gyaneshwari and Mr. Puneet Gupta with copy marked to Ms. Sumpa Nanda on the very same date. Further the plaintiff also sent a separate email to defendant No.2 only, thereby forwarding the handover email and also intimating him about the password of the Laptop so handed over by the plaintiff to Mr. Puneet Gupta. 1.17. The handover of the assets of the defendant No.1 including the laptop, by the plaintiff, the plaintiff had nothing more to handover to the defendant No.1 company. Vide email dated 02.12.2013, the plaintiff requested defendants No. 1 and 2 to give him his full and final settlement. The defendant No.2 vide its reply dated 0212.2013 asked the plaintiff to follow the process for full and final with Ms. Gyaneshwari in HR with a copy marked to Ms. Gyaneshwri as well.
1.18. The plaintiff visited the office of defendant No.1 on 16.12.2013 where one Mr. Sudhakar (Manager HR) along with Mr. Tanvir Singh & Mr. Manjeet Singh (Sr. Accounts CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 13 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
Resources) coordinated the process of relieving. The plaintiff at this stage was informed that the plaintiff was required to visit once again since Mr. Hemant Ladia, who independently handled MIS and reporting to CEO/MD i.e. defendant No.2, was on leave and further the defendant No.2 was busy with his schedule and would not be able to meet the plaintiff. The plaintiff vide his email dated 18.12.2013 exercised its right to 150 ESOPS initially vested with him and enclosed a Stock Option Exercise Notice" in prescribed Schedule-A form in terms of the Agreement dated 01.04.2013 alongwith the copy of the requisite cheque, the originals of which, the plaintiff posted at the registered office of the defendant No.1. Although the plaintiff was entitled to 267 ESOPS in terms of the email dated 26.06.2012 send by the defendant No.1 & 2, since the plaintiff was initially promised 800 ESOPS of defendant No.1 with a vesting period of 4 years, however the plaintiff under immense financial hardship and in the absence of a job, without prejudice to its rights, demanded only 150 ESOPS in terms of the letter and accompanying agreement dated 01.04.2013 which was signed by the plaintiff in the circumstances as detailed herein above. The plaintiff vide email 14.01.2014 intimated defendant No.2 about his CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 14 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
intention and offer to sell 150 ESOPs vested with him. 1.19. The plaintiff vide his email dated 06.01.2014 once again requested defendant No.2 to provide for the following:
Acceptance of resignation;
No dues Certificate;
Experiences Certificate;
Letter of recommendation;
Equity Shares as per the ESOPS Schemes of Defendant No.1 request of which was already made;
Full and final due payout;
Income Certificate for the period of employment for FY 2013-14; & Certificate of TDS on Salary FY 2013-14.
1.20. The plaintiff was shocked to receive an email dated 14.01.2014 from Ms. Gyanaeshwari of defendant No.1, who once again asked to complete so called hand over process. On 15.01.2014 the plaintiff received an email from the one Mr. Sudhakar I. Prabhu (Manager-HR) of defendant No.1, who even denied the plaintiff, its benefit of 150 ESPOS vested to him vide agreement dated 01.04.2013 on the ground that the compensation committee of the defendant No.1 has not approved the same. Vide the said email, the defendant No.1 also denied issuing No Dues Certificate and experience CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 15 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
certificate on the ground of non completion of handover. The plaintiff was denied Character Certificate and Letter of Recommendation on the ground that the defendant No.1 as per its police do not issue the same. The said conduct of the defendant No.1 & 2 was patently illegal, mischievous, ill- motivated and nakedly exposed the malafide conduct of the defendants.
1.21. The plaintiff immediately on 16.01.2014 once again answered all unreasonable queries, so raised by Mr. Sudhakar I. Prabhu (Manager-HR) of defendant No.1 vide his email dated 15.01.2014 and once again requested for his full and final settlement of his dues. The plaintiff vide his email dated 16.01.2014 to defendant No.2 asking to explain as to why the benefit of ESPOS have been denied to the plaintiff, however the defendant No.2 did not even bother to respond to the same. Mr. Sudhakar I. Prabhu (Manager-HR) of defendant No.1, vide another email dated 23.01.2014 once again illegal directed the plaintiff to visit the office of defendant No.1 and complete the proper handover. Under the instructions of defendant No.1 and 2, it was informed to the plaintiff vide email dated 23.01.2014 that proper handover, would include, closure of all the projects which were handed by the plaintiff.
CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 16 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
Since the entire handover process was already completed by the plaintiff as early as on 16.12.2013, still defendant No. 1 & 2 had been making lame excuses of not settling the dues of the plaintiff for one reason or the other. The plaintiff as a result of the same also got issued a legal notice dated 11.02.2014 through Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate thereby demanding its full and final dues which inter-alia included dues against payout for 20 days for November, 2013, leave encashment, medical reimbursement, compensation for ESOP's etc. The plaintiff vide the aforementioned Legal Notice also demanded compensation on account of damages. The said Legal notice was replied to by the defendant No.1 through its advocate being Ms. PKA vide their reply dated 20.02.2014 taking false and frivolous pleas. The defendants No. 1 & 2 again called upon the plaintiff to visit the office of the defendant No.1 on 24.02.2014 for completion of post resignation formalities.
1.22. The plaintiff visited the office of the defendant No.1 on 24.02.2014. At that point of time the defendant No.2 offered the plaintiff a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as full and final settlement of its dues to which the plaintiff refused. 1.23. Vide email dated 04.03.2014, send by the CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 17 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
representative of defendant No.1, the defendant No.1 & 2 as an after thought emailed the minutes of the meeting dated 24.02.2014 whereby the minutes were wrongly recorded / worded in order to create a false evidence as if clarification / documents were only given on 24.02.2014 and not before. The defendant No. 1 & 2 even tried to extend the scope of the queries / clarifications / documents as is evident from the said minutes of the meeting. The same was immediately objected to by the plaintiff vide his email dated 04.03.2014 itself. 1.24. The plaintiff was once again called to the office of the defendant No. 1 on 04.03.2014 to which also he cooperated. However, once again the said meeting was a complete eye wash like the earlier ones and nothing again materialized. However, the representative of defendant No.1 once again vide its email dated 10.03.2014 tried to extend the scope of the queries / clarifications / documents as is evident from the said minutes of meeting dated 04.03.2014. The same was once again immediately objected to, by the plaintiff vide its email of the same date.
1.25. The plaintiff subsequently was once again asked to visit the office of the defendant No.1 on 13.03.2014, however, the plaintiff in view of his past experience expressed his CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 18 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
reservation vide his email dated 07.03.2014. However, inspite of all this the defendant No.1 once again asked the plaintiff to visit the office of the defendant No.1 and after some correspondence, the plaintiff once again visited the office of the defendant No.1 on 28.03.2013 wherein the plaintiff was once again offered a meager sum of Rs.5,00,000/- against full and final settlement of the dues of the plaintiff by Mr. Ravi Ajmera, VP Finance with defendant No.1.
1.26. The plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.31,87,606/- from defendant No.1, on account of at least 267 ESOPS, since the plaintiff was promised 800 ESOPS with vesting period of 4 years.
1.27. The last salary drawn by the plaintiff from defendant No.1 was Rs.1,80,001/- (One Lakh Eighty Thousand and One Rupees Only). The plaintiff is accordingly entitled to a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- (One Lakh Twenty Thousand Only) from 01.11.2013 to 20.11.2013 being the salary for 20 days for the month of November, 2013. The plaintiff is also entitled to a salary equivalent to at least 2 months notice period since the plaintiff resignation was a constructive dismissal on account of the illegal acts of defendants. Thus the defendant No.1 & 2 are liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,60,002/- (Three Lakh Sixty CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 19 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
Thousand Two Rupees Only) towards the notice period, which otherwise the other equivalent executive/employees are entitled in case of termination.
1.28. The defendant No.1 malafidely, unreasonably and illegally withheld the necessary documents including acceptance of resignation, no dues certificate, experience certificate, letter of recommendation, Income Certificate for the period of employment for FY 2013-14; and Certificate of TDS on Salary FY 2013-14 of the plaintiff, as a result of which the plaintiff could not pursue various jobs, applied for, by the plaintiff, starting form December, 2013 till the filing of the present case. The plaintiff had in total applied for 78 jobs the details of which are filed along with the present case. The plaintiff continued to make parallel efforts by calling his peers and past seniors who are presently working in different organization in order to find a suitable opening for the plaintiff in their respective organizations, however all of them expressed their helplessness in the absence of basic documentation as detailed herein above. Thus as a result illegal acts and omission of the defendant No.1 & 2 the plaintiff could not find a suitable job inspite of having made best efforts and thus the plaintiff has suffered a loss of CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 20 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
Rs.9,00,005/- (Rs. Nine Lakh and Five only) according to the last salary drawn by the plaintiff starting from December, 2013 till at least April, 2014 which otherwise the plaintiff would have got from the defendant No.1 & 2 in case the plaintiff would have remained under their employment. Therefore the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendants No.1 & 2 a total sum of Rs.45,67,613/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakh Sixty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Thirteen only).
1.29. Though the damage caused to the personal and professional reputation of the plaintiff are irreparable and cannot be compensated in terms of any amount. However, the plaintiff is seeking only a token amount of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rs. Fifty Lakh Only) as damages form defendants in addition to the amounts. Hence, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff with the following prayer.
"a) Pass a decree of perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants including its employees, agents, assigns, successors or any other persons acting on behalf of the defendants restraining them from defaming the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever;
b) Pass a decree of declaration thereby declaring that the resignation of the plaintiff so submitted CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 21 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
amount to a constructive dismissal on account of the illegal acts of the defendants in connivance with each other;
c) Pass a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants No. 1 & 2 thereby directing the said defendant No. 1 & 2 to issue necessary relieving documents including acceptance of resignation, no dues certificate, experience certificate, letter of recommendation, Income Certificate for the period of employment for FY 2013-14; and Certificate of TDS on Salary FY 2013-14 pertaining to the plaintiff;
d) Pass a decree for a sum of Rs.45,67,613/-
(Rupees Forty Five Lakh Sixty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and thirteen Rupees Only) in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant No.1 along with future and pendentalite interest @18% per annum from the date of institution of the present suit till its recovery;
e) Pass a decree of damages of Rs.50,00,000/-
(Fifty Lakh Only) in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants, jointly and severally along with future and pendentalite interest @18% per annum from the date of institution of the present suit till its recovery;
f) Pass a decree for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakh Only) on account of the legal expense so incurred by the plaintiff as a result of the illegal acts, so committed by the defendants in connivance with each other in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants, jointly and severally along with future and pendentalite interest @18% per annum CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 22 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
from the date of institution of the present suit till its recovery;
g) Award the cost of the suit; and
h) Pass any other decree or further orders may also kindly be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants."
2. The summons were issued to the defendant vide order dated 16.05.2014. Defendants No. 1, 2, 3 & 4 contested the suit by filing the written statements. Defendants no. 1 & 2 and defendants no. 3 & 4 filed their separate written statement. The defendants No.1 & 2 has in their written statement as under:-
2.1. The present suit is not maintainable in its present form as the same is without any cause of action. The plaintiff has concealed material facts from this Court. The suit is an abuse of process of law and an effort to defame and extort money from the answering defendants. The suit suffers from mis-joinder of parties. The defendant has willfully and knowingly had not added Google India Pvt. Ltd. in array of defendants as the the said Google India Pvt. Ltd. is a mandatory party to the present suit.
2.2. The defendant No.2 is the Managing Director of the defendant No.1. The defendant No.2 has been appointed MD CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 23 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
and CEO of the Board of Directors. The defendant No.1 had hired services of defendant No.3 w.e.f. 01.10.2013 till 05.08.2013.
2.3. The plaintiff was appointed as Deputy General Manager Accounts. Subsequently by elapse of time and as a result of growth of the company the plaintiff was elevated to the post of General Manager Accounts in pursuance to the uniform company polices. No formal legal and audit responsibilities were assigned to the plaintiff even though as part of his responsibility in finance he was required to interact with multiple functions as per the policy of the company. 2.4. The defendant never asked the plaintiff to use the mobile phone number mentioned in the plaint for any official purpose. The offer of 800 ESOPs was made by the defendant No.2 which was subject to the approval of the Board of Director of defendant No.1. However, the administrator i.e. the compensation company comprised of the Board of Directors of the defendant No.1 only approved for 500 ESOPs which was duly accepted by the plaintiff and accordingly he signed the agreement without registering any protest. False allegation has been made by him that he had signed the agreement under duress. No exclusive authority was given to CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 24 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
the plaintiff to communicate or converse with the defendant No.3 by the defendant No. 1 & 2. Explanation was called from the plaintiff as part of the company's internal process. The defendant No.1 is the owner of the domain name Greendust.com and the defendant No.2 is the contact person therein. The plaintiff was never humiliated by defendant No.1 or 2 or any of their employees. The logs of the laptop were downloaded in front of the plaintiff in his own office as part of the inquiry which was conducted by the defendant No.1 as per policy. The plaintiff was not forced to resign and he was not forced to sign any ante dated employment contract and non disclosure agreement. The plaintiff was part of the team that redrafted the NDA for all employees of defendant as part of upgrading the NDA document across the company. He was instrumental in ensuring that all employees sign it including his team members in finance. When he was approached to sign the upgraded NDA as per policy of the company the plaintiff refused to sign the same. Therefore, as per the policy of the company, the company decided to withdraw access to the company's bank accounts that the plaintiff had access to. The plaintiff was a senior personnel with the company and fully aware of the handover process of the company. He was CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 25 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
aware that handover includes handover of sensitive projects with different organizations, introduction and handover of banking relationships, handover of responsibilities to new person, helping hire a new person so that business does not suffer and many more such activities. The plaintiff was asked several times to complete the handover process, however he delayed the process. The handover process was completed on 28.03.2014. During course of scrutiny and analysis of documents furnished and placed by the plaintiff as part of standard full and final process, it was revealed that the plaintiff had been drawing house rent benefit in the name of landlady Mrs. Saroj Hans who is his mother in law. He had concealed his actual address of residence. He used his in-laws address for purpose of disbursement of house rent and to claim undue benefit from Government of India. He has drawn LTC but has not availed the same. He furnished Air Ticket to Goa Travel but did not submit the boarding pass. He availed Medical Insurance Policy Benefit for dependents parents-in- law showing them as his own parents. He was asked through e-mails and letters various times to explain the discrepancies, however he did not respond. The plaintiff was liable to pay dues to the company, therefore, a demand notice for recovery CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 26 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
was also issued by defendant No.1 for a sum of Rs.2,87,158/-. However, no reply has been sent by the plaintiff. The notice of exercise of right by the plaintiff was received in the office of the defendant No.1 along with a cheque which was returned unpresented as the plaintiff had not completed the handover process. The ESOP was not approved by the compensation committee for want of satisfactory handover followed by full and final process. The plaintiff was aware that the defendant No.1's policy of full and final does not include letter of recommendation and character certificate. The plaintiff was instrumental in framing of the said policy for the defendant. The plaintiff was also aware that ESOPs were part of full and final settlement subsequent to completion of handover process and plaintiff was pressurizing defendants to bypass the process for gaining undue out of turn monetary benefits. The plaintiff has made false allegations of offering money to him. No such money was ever offered. Nothing is due and payable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has failed to discharge his part of the obligations. The plaintiff is not entitled for 20 days for the month of November, 2013. On the contrary the defendant is entitled to recover notice period salary from the plaintiff. He is not entitled to any notice period salary. The other demands CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 27 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
made by the plaintiff are also false. No cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, it is prayed that the suit may be dismissed.
3. Defendant No. 3 and 4 have filed their joint written statement. They have denied all the allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint. It is stated that there is no liability of the defendants against the plaintiff. There was no contract between the plaintiff and the defendants and therefore he cannot claim any compensation from the defendants. On receiving a complaint from one of the senior female associate of the defendant regarding receiving of unpleasant and provoking e-mails and SMSes from the plaintiff, the defendant in order to safeguard the modesty and dignity of the senior female associate had complained to the defendant No.1 seeking intervention for resolution of the same. The said associate preferred not to share the call detail, SMSes or e-mail with the defendant and she was not willing to disclose her identity. She never pursued her complaint and preferred not to share her identity in public which could harm her prestige and respect. The said female associate was no more associated with the defendant. The retainership agreement between the answering defendants and the defendant No.1 had already been terminated in August - September 2013 and therefore the answering defendants CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 28 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
have not concern with the internal affairs of the defendant No.1. The suit is not maintainable qua the answering defendants. Hence, it is prayed that it may be dismissed.
4. On the basis of the pleadings following issues were framed on 14.03.2019:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek a decree of declaration to the effect that resignation submitted by the plaintiff actually amounts to dismissal / termination? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from defaming in any manner? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of money to the tune of Rs.45,67,613/- along with pendete lite and future interest @18%? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of damages of Rs.50 lakhs along with interest @18% till the disposal of the suit? OPP
6. Whether the suit is false, malicious and misconceived and are liable to be dismissed? OPD
7. Whether there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff to file the present suit? Onus on parties
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Rs.2 lakh towards cost of the proceedings? OPP
9. Whether the plaintiff was any contact privity? OPD
10. Relief.CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 29 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024
Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
5. The matter was fixed for plaintiff's evidence.
6. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. He has reiterated the facts stated in the plaint. He has relied upon the following documents :
a) Photocopy of e-mail communication dated
26.06.2012 sent by defendant No. 1 & 2 to the
plaintiff is Ex.PW1/1.
b) Photocopy of communication dated 05.08.2013 written by plaintiff to the defendant No. 3 & 4 is Ex.PW1/2.
c) Photocopy of training mail dated 16.10.2013 and 15.10.2013 addressed by defendant No. 2 to the plaintiff is Ex.PW1/3.
d) Copies of complaint dated 16.10.2013 given by the plaintiff to various police authorities is Ex.PW1/4 (colly).
e) Copies of reminder dated 23.12.2013 and 21.02.2014 given to police authorities are Ex.PW1/5 (colly).
f) Copy of e-mail dated 17.10.2013 addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant No.1 is Ex.PW1/6.
g) Copy of notification dated 17.10.2013 is Ex.PW1/7.
h) Copy of e-mail dated 18.10.2013 written by defendant No.2 to the plaintiff is Ex.PW1/8.
i) Copy of e-mail dated 21.10.2013 written by the plaintiff to the defendant No.2 is Ex.PW1/9.
j) Copy of followup e-mails with police officials is Ex.PW1/10.
k) Copy of analysis of lock files made from computer being operated by the plaintiff is Ex.PW1/11.
CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 30 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
l) Copy of e-mail dated 28.10.2013 received by the plaintiff from Ms. Shumpa Nanda is Ex.PW1/12.
m) Copy of e-mail dated 29.10.2013 sent by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 & 2 is Ex.PW1/13.
n) Copy of e-mail communication dated 30.10.2013 addressed by Ms. Shumpa Nanda to the defendant No.4 and to the plaintiff is Ex.PW1/14.
o) Copy of e-mail dated 01.11.2013 written by the plaintiff to Nodal Officer Bharti Airtel is Ex.PW1/15.
p) Copy of Minutes of Meeting dated 13.10.2013 is Ex.PW1/16.
q) Copy of e-mail dated 20.11.2013 address by the plaintiff to the defendant No.2 is Ex.PW1/17.
r) Copy of e-mail dated 22.11.2013 written by the plaintiff is Ex.PW1/18.
s) Copy of letter and other documents pertaining to handing over assets to the defendant No.1 along with e-mail dated 28.11.2013 is Ex.PW1/19 (colly).
t) Copy of communications exchanged between plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 & 2 are Ex.PW1/20 (colly). u) Copy of legal notice dated 11.02.2014, reply dated 14.02.2014 and e-mail dated 24.02.2014 are Ex.PW1/21 (colly).
v) Copy of e-mail exchanged between plaintiff and the defendant No.2 from 23.02.2014 to 27.03.2014 are Ex.PW1/22 (colly).
7. The defendants had stopped appearing therefore right to cross examination was closed vide order dated 12.04.2022. At request, PE was closed. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for DE. Defendants did not appear to lead any evidence and the CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 31 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
opportunity to lead DE was closed vide order dated 23.01.2013. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
8. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff would argue that the plaintiff has proved his case as per law. The defendants have not led any evidence. All the contentions made by the plaintiff in the plaint have been proved as per law. Hence, it is prayed that the suit may be decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
9. I have heard the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material on record. My issues wise findings are as under:-
Issue no. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek a decree of declaration to the effect that resignation submitted by the plaintiff actually amounts to dismissal / termination? OPP
10. Plaintiff's contention is that effect of his resignation from the service of defendant no. 1 amounts to constructive dismissal on account of the illegal acts of the defendants in connivance with each other. The plaintiff relied upon document Ex. PW-1/17 (colly) to show his resignation to the defendant company. The e- mail is dated 20.11.2013. The contents of the mail shows that it was addressed to defendant no. 2 herein by mentioning that due to lack of controls and poor governance in the company, the plaintiff herein was not comfortable in continuing further with the CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 32 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
organization and therefore, he tender his resignation from current role and responsibilities of General Manager-Finance and he may please be relieved with immediate effect. This document does not show any intention of the plaintiff that he communicated his resignation by mentioning his intention to treat the same as his constructive dismissal. No company policy or any other rules framed by the concerned competent authority to show the specific circumstances under which the resignation of the employee may be treated as his constructive dismissal from the services were placed on record. There is clear difference between the terms resignation and constructive dismissal from the services. Resignation is a voluntary act of an employee to leave the job voluntarily. Constructive dismissal, although not expressly defined and recognized under Indian law, is a significant concern in the country's employment landscape. It refers to an employee's conduct that effectively alters the terms and conditions of employment, such that it makes the work environment unbearable for an employee. Such changes can range from unjustified demotion and arbitrary salary reduction to unreasonable workloads. The effect is to force employees to quit when that may not be their initial intention. Concerned resignations driven by the employer's actions threaten the roots of fair employment practices CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 33 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
and encroach on the rights of the employee. Judicial precedents have laid down circumstances where resignations are deemed to be involuntary or coerced.
11. Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent judgment in M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited vs. A.S. Raghavendra in Civil Appeal no. 5187 of 2023 as decided on 2nd April 2024 observed that "27. Though much emphasis was laid by the respondent on his claim that his resignation was forced, this Court is not persuaded to accept such a contention, basically on the ground that the language employed by the respondent in his resignation letter is to the effect that he was submitting his resignation, which may be approved, keeping the interest of his family and career and also that with utmost feeling of humiliation and insult he was submitting such resignation. It further indicates that over the six months preceding his resignation, he felt that he had been subjected to unfair rating, which indicates his disillusionment and dissatisfaction, while working for the Company. Pausing here, the Court would indicate that a person, in the employment of any company, cannot dictate terms of his employment to his employer. He has channels of venting her/his grievances but ultimately, it is the view of the competent authority within the organisation that will prevail with regard to his appraisal/ rating. In his resignation letter dated 24.03.2011, the respondent has further stated that because of being subjected to unfair rating without any feedback or review, he faced personal and professional insult, harassment and was left with no option but to submit his resignation, which was not out of his free will. Again, the Court would indicate that the phraseology, "not of his free will"
would not mean that it was forced upon him by the Company. Rather, what can be gathered from the materials on record and the orders of the fora below, is that the resignation was more out of a sense of being unfairly rated by the appellant. From the material available, it also transpires that 120 [2024] 4 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports the respondent had made a complaint to the Ombudsman pertaining to his unfair rating. Needless to point out, it would be far-fetched for the Court CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 34 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
to assume that the entire organisation i.e., the Company would be against one individual (the respondent) and that a person of such high caliber and quality, who could deliver so much to the Company, would be forced to put in his papers.
28. The respondent asserts that he was one of the best performers and an asset to the Company. Such being the situation, it is hard to fathom why all his superiors would have turned against him. On the record, there is no direct allegation of any bias against or victimisation of the respondent as he himself has stated as also written to various persons venting his grievances. Only because things did not turn out the way the respondent wanted them to, or for that his grievances were not adequately or appropriately addressed, cannot lead to the presumption that the resignation was forced upon him by the Company. One way to label the respondent's resignation as "forced" would be to attribute the compulsion to the respondent, rather than factors relating to the Company and/or its management. In other words, it can be termed a result of feeling suffocated due to lack of proper appreciation and not being given his rightful due that led to the chain of events supra, rather than by way of any arbitrariness or high-handedness on the part of the appellant. Bearing due regard to the nature of duties performed by the respondent, we are satisfied that the same do not entail him being placed under the cover of Section 2(s), ID Act."
12. In the present case, it is admitted position of the plaintiff that looking at the loyalty and services of the plaintiff towards the defendant no. 1, 800 ESOPS were promised to him by defendant no. 1 with a vesting period of 4 years and he was promoted to GM Finance as well as also rewarded with increment and performance incentives as loan waiver. It is also an admitted position that later a Notice of Stock Option Grant for 500 ESOPS with a vesting period of 6 years was finalised between plaintiff and defendant CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 35 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
no.1. Defendant no. 1 claims that plaintiff was one out of the few employees who were given these shares. When such being the situation, it is hard to believe why all his superiors would have turned against him only because things did not turn out the way the plaintiff wanted them to or for that his grievances were not adequately or appropriately addressed, cannot lead to the presumption that the resignation was forced upon him by the defendant company. Merely initiation of an inquiry on allegations of writing unpleasent, favourseeking and provoking e-mails and sending SMS to a senior advocate working with defendant no. 3/ a retainer firm of defendant no. 1 cannot be termed as an act of arbitrariness or high handedness on the part of defendants. Being not comfortable in continuing further with the organization due to lack of controls and poor governance in the company and thereafter the request of relieving him with immediate effect would not mean by any stretch of imagination that it was forced upon him by the company. Needless to point out, it would be far-fetched for the court to assume that the entire organization i.e. the defendant company would be against one individual i.e. the plaintiff and that a person of such high caliber and quality who could deliver so much to the company, would be forced to put in his papers. In view of the aforesaid discussion, settled law and material available CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 36 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
on record, I am of the considered opinion that if an employee does not find himself fit to continue the employment due to unfavourable working atmosphere and voluntarily resigns then it cannot be termed as constructive dismissal from the service. Accordingly issue no. 1 is decided against the plaintiff.
Issue no. 2 -Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from defaming in any manner? OPP Issue no. 5 -Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of damages of Rs.50 lakhs along with interest @18% till the disposal of the suit? OPP
13. Issues no. 2 and 5 are taken together as they are interconnected. Plaintiff contended that defendants no. 3 & 4 in connivance with defendants no. 1 & 2 have falsely made allegations against the plaintiff vide its e-mail dated 15.10.2013 and deliberately chosen to remain mum regarding the documents in support of the said allegations inspite of repeatedly asking for the same knowing very well that allegations made by defendant no. 4 while alleging that plaintiff had been writing unpleasent, favourseeking and provoking e-mails and sending SMS to a senior advocate working with defendant no. 3 were not only false but were also defamatory and were damage to the reputation of the plaintiff not only in the eyes of public at large but also in eyes of CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 37 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
his own family members. The plaintiff tendered in his evidence one e-mail dated 15.10.2013 Ex. PW-1/3 send by defendant no. 4 herein to the defendant no. 2 herein by writing a complaint against the plaintiff. Secondly, in anticipation of hacking of his official e- mail ID and mobile phone bearing no. 9810034558, the plaintiff made a complaint to EOW, Delhi police through e-mail, which was tendered as Ex. PW-1/4. The reminders qua the same were sent by plaintiff on 23.12.2013 and 21.02.2014, which were tendered and exhibited as Ex. PW1/5 (colly) during his evidence. He also filed a printout of his communication through e-mail dated 17.10.2013 while giving reply to the allegations. The same was tendered as Ex. PW-1/6. He also immediately notified to defendant no. 1 being an intermediary within the meaning of Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and defendant No.2 being the owner of the domain name greendust.com. Copy of the same was tendered in evidence of PW-1 as Ex. PW-1/7. Ex. PW-1/8 and Ex. PW-1/9 are further communications between the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 through e-mails regarding the document Ex. PW- 1/7. Ex. PW-1/10 is further an e-mail sent by plaintiff to the police officials as follow up e-mails. Ex. PW-1/11 is analysis of the log files by one Sumit Ranjan under instructions of defendant no. 2 from the plaintiff's computer to which the plaintiff consented. Ex.
CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 38 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
PW-1/12 is an e-mail dated 28.10.2013 received by plaintiff from the HR of the defendant company through which she shared minutes of meeting dated 24.10.2013 informing that an inquiry committee has been formed. Ex. PW-1/13 is e-mail dated 29.10.2013 for his communication to defendants no. 1 & 2 for calling the evidence pertaining to the allegations made against him. Ex. PW-1/14 is a copy of e-mail dated 30.10.2013 sent on behalf of defendant company to defendant no. 4 for seeking necessary details pertaining to the alleged incident. Ex. PW-1/15 is a complaint made by plaintiff to Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel, UP West & New Delhi. Ex. PW-1/16 is copy of minutes of meeting dated 13.10.2013. Ex. PW-1/17 (colly) is e-mail sent by plaintiff of resignation and reply by defendant no. 2 on that e-mail. Ex. PW- 1/18 is further an e-mail sent by plaintiff to Commissioner of Police, Delhi on his fear regarding any further illegal act after the defendant no. 1 & 2 took control over the took control over the subject email ID from the plaintiff by changing its password. Ex. PW-1/19 (colly) is letter and other documents pertaining to handing over assets b the plaintiff to the defendant company and e- mail dated 28.11.2013 sharing password of plaintiff's laptop. Ex. PW-1/20 (colly) are communications exchanged between plaintiff and defendants no. 1 & 2 regarding plaintiff's requirement to visit CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 39 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
office regarding the handing over and sign off. Ex. PW-1/21 is legal notice sent by plaintiff to defendants no. 1 & 2 regarding settling of dues of the plaintiff. Ex. PW-1/22 is also a communication between the plaintiff and defendants no. 1 & 2 regarding his requirement to visit the office.
14. Under Indian Law, defamation can be a civil wrong or a criminal offence. Civil defamation can be libel (through writing) or slander (spoken word) and is based on Law of Torts. It is punishable with financial compensation and damages are computed based on probabilities.
15. The statement should lower the reputation in view of right thinking member of society generally or which tends to make them shun or avoid that person. The statement should be known to the other person other than the plaintiff or the defendant. If no other person except the plaintiff knows about this then there is no defamation.
16. These documents nowhere shows any defamatory publication on behalf of defendants. These are merely complaints and communications between all the necessary parties regarding the inquiry. Whenever any complaint mentioning any unwelcome, unpleasent communication from a male employee of the company to some female employee of the retainer firm was made then any CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 40 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
responsible institution is expected to initiate the inquiry on such allegations. The above said documents relied upon by the plaintiff also shows that except the necessary actions for conducting the inquiry on the allegations received against the plaintiff nothing to defame the plaintiff was done/ published by the defendants. It is not the case of the plaintiff that he was defamed by the defendants through independent publications or communications except the necessary communications for the purpose of inquiry. No other independent witness was also examined by the plaintiff to show his defamation. To prove defamation it must be in the eyes of others, however, no such witness was ever examined by the plaintiff.
17. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that no defamation of the plaintiff was made on behalf of defendants. When there is no defamation then question of permanent injunction against the defendants by restraining them from defaming plaintiff in any manner does not arise. When no defamation of the plaintiff was committed then question of damages also does not arise.
18. Accordingly, plaintiff is also not entitled for decree of damages of Rs. 50,00,000/-. Accordingly, issues no. 2 & 5 are also decided against the plaintiff.
Issue no. 3 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 41 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
injunction as prayed for? OPP
19. Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 defines mandatory injunction by providing that "when, to prevent the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts which the court is capable of enforcing, the court may in its discretion grant an injunction to prevent the breach complained of, and also to compel performance of the requisite acts".
20. In the present case, the plaintiff has sought relief of mandatory injunction by directing defendants no. 1 & 2 to issue certain documents pertaining to the plaintiff. At first, no evidence was led by the plaintiff to show that he was eligible for receiving the claimed documents from defendant no. 1 & 2 as per the company rules. Secondly, it was not specified by the plaintiff that in seeking mandatory injunction what kind of breach was intended to stop. A mere direction of performance of requisite acts does not fall within the ambit of mandatory injunction. For issuance of mandatory injunction there must be something regarding which the injunction to prevent the breach may also be granted alongwith compelling the defendants for performance of requisite acts. Here through mandatory injunction the plaintiff claims only compelling CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 42 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
performance by the defendants to the requisite acts. Accordingly, the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for can also not be granted to the plaintiff and issue no. 3 is decided against the plaintiff.
Issue no. 4 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of money to the tune of Rs. 33,07,606/- along with pendete lite and future interest @18%? OPP
21. On 14.03.2019, issue no. 4 was framed "whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of money to the tune of Rs.45,67,613/- along with pendete lite and future interest @18%? OPP", however, vide order dated 29.07.2024 issue no. 4 was amended as above in view of the submissions of Ld. proxy counsel for plaintiff and in exercising power under order XIV rule 5 CPC. The plaintiff already abandoned his claim to the tune of Rs. 12,60,007/- on the ground that he did not wish to claim for money of Rs. 9,00,000/- on ground of non receiving of any further employment after resignation from the defendant company along with a further claim of Rs. 3,60,000/- which he claimed for two months salary of notice period on the ground that he did not work on these months of notice period. Accordingly, issue no. 4 was reframed only with the change of claimed amount i.e. Rs. 33,07,606/- from Rs. 45,67,613/-. The claimed amount was for a CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 43 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- on account of plaintiff's salary starting from 01.11.2013 to 20.11.2013 being the salary for the 20 days for the month of November 2013 and of Rs. 31,87,606/- being the value of 267 ESOPS (shares) of the defendant no. 1 company. The plaintiff contended that defendant company promised 800 ESPOS (shares) with the vesting period of 4 years vide e-mail dated 26.06.2012 Ex. PW-1/1 (colly) and a pro rata calculation of the number of ESPOS accruing to him for 16 months of his service with a vesting period of 4 years comes to 267 ESPOS (shares) and as per his best knowledge the last valuation of the shares of defendant no. 1 company was Rs. 11,938.60 and the total valuation by taking into consideration a total number of ESPOS as 267 becomes Rs. 31,87,606/-.
22. Ex. PW-1/1 (colly) is photocopy of e-mail communication dated 26.06.2012 and notice of stock option grant. The e-mail dated 26.06.2012 shows an intimation regarding giving 800 stocks to the plaintiff with a vesting period of 4 years. No further detail was mentioned in the e-mail. However, the notice of stock option grant is dated 01.04.2013 addressed to the plaintiff by MD & CEO of defendant company. It shows that an option was granted to the plaintiff to purchase shares of the company at a price of Rs. 1/- per share. This agreement shows that it was accepted by the plaintiff CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 44 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
by signing the agreement. This fact is not disputed by the plaintiff itself in its pleadings/ evidence. It is also the admitted position of defendants no. 1 & 2 that the 500 shares of the company were granted to the plaintiff, while admitting the same at para 8(e) of their joint written statement by mentioning that the administrator therein is the compensation committee comprised of the Board of Directors of defendant no. 1 which only approved for 500 ESPOS which was duly accepted by the plaintiff and without registering any protest. No further evidence regarding finalization of the grant of 800 shares of the company was produced by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the contract dated 01.04.2013 for purchase of 500 shares of the company shall be considered as final in favour of the plaintiff to decide this issue.
23. The stock option agreement shows the vesting schedule. As per the schedule 1st vesting is shown as immediate, 2nd vesting of the 20% of the vesting shall come into picture on 30.09.2013, as per the 3rd vesting the next 30% of the vesting shall accrued to be vested on 30.09.2014 and the another remaining 40% of the vesting shall accrued to be vested through 4th vesting on 30.09.2015.
24. The part II of the option agreement mentions at point 3 that all the unvested options as well as unexercised option of the CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 45 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
Optionee shall lapse on the date of resignation/ termination. It is admitted position of the plaintiff that he resigned from the defendant company on 20.11.2015 through Ex. PW-1/17, meaning thereby he shall be entitled only for 1 st and 2nd vesting and not for 3rd and 4th vesting. Accordingly, at the maximum the plaintiff shall be eligible only for 30% (150 shares) of all the shares of the company out of total 500 shares. In its joint written statement also, in para 8(ii) defendants no. 1 & 2 submitted that the claims and debts were lastly submitted on 24.03.2014, hence it cannot be said that complete hand over was effected prior to 28.03.2014 and plaintiff was entitled for full and final prior to 28.03.2014. It has also been submitted in para 8(kk) of the WS that plaintiff had not completed the handing over process and as standard company process full and final only get processed after satisfactory completion of hand over process for every employee. The above fact was admitted in e-mail dated 15.01.2014 where ESOP was not approved by the compensation committee for want of satisfactory hand over followed by full and final process ensuring same process was applied to all employees. However, in their WS at para 8(ff) they have admitted that the plaintiff did not subsequently come for proper hand over and detailed meetings over days with the entire team. The hand over process was completed on CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 46 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
28.03.2014 with complete acceptance and sign over from the company representative and the plaintiff demonstrating the defendants diligently following company policy of transparency, process and impartiality with all employees. This admission shows that the hand over process with complete acceptance and sign over between the defendant company and the plaintiff was completed on 28.03.2014. Accordingly, as per their own stand the defendants company shall be liable for 150 ESPOS to the plaintiff and the valuation of the shares of the defendant no. 1 company shall be Rs. 11938.60 per share as mentioned in para 10 of the plaint, which remained unrebutted even through WS. Accordingly, shares of the company for which the plaintiff shall be entitled, shall come to a sum of Rs. 17,90,790/-. The total shares of the company as 150 has been determined as per the abovesaid calculation. Any further entitlement in favour of the plaintiff over 150 shares through any evidence was never proved. Any lesser entitlement of the plaintiff from the 150 shares was also never proved by the defendant company by leading any evidence to that effect.
25. It is also not disputed by the defendant company that plaintiff did not serve the defendant company in the month of November 2013 from 01.11.2013 to 20.11.2013 i.e. for total 20 CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 47 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
days. The last salary has also been admitted through WS by defendant no. 1 & 2. Accordingly, while considering the abovesaid admission of defendant company that handover process was completed on 28.03.2014, the plaintiff shall be entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- from defendant no. 1 on account of his salary of 20 days for the month of November 2013 while taking into consideration his last salary as Rs. 1,80,000/-. Accordingly, the plaintiff shall be entitled for a sum of Rs. 19,10,790/- (Rs. 17,90,790/- + Rs. 1,20,000/-).
26. The plaintiff claimed pendente lite and future interest @ 18% on the decreed amount, however, such high rate of interest is against the public policy. The plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 19,10,790/- from the defendant no. 1 being employer company along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit to the date of decree and interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree to the date of payment. The issue no. 4 is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff to the abovesaid effect only.
Issue no. 8 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Rs.2 lakh towards cost of the proceedings? OPP
27. No evidence was ever led by the plaintiff to show that he had born a cost of Rs. 2,00,000/- as a cost of the proceedings. He also did not produce any evidence to show his entitlement for the CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 48 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
cost of the proceedings. Accordingly, in absence of any evidence the plaintiff shall not be entitled to Rs. 2,00,000/- towards of the cost of the proceedings. Hence, issue no. 8 is decided against the plaintiff.
Issue no. 6 - Whether the suit is false, malicious and misconceived and are liable to be dismissed? OPD Issue no. 7 - Whether there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff to file the present suit? Onus on parties Issue no. 9 - Whether the plaintiff was any contact privity? OPD
28. Issue no. 6, 7 & 9 are taken together as they are interconnected. Vide order dated 12.04.2022 the PE was closed and matter was listed for DE on 21.07.2022. Vide order dated 23.01.2023, while observing that the defendants had failed to lead evidence despite several opportunities, the opportunity to lead DE was closed. The onus to prove issues no. 6 & 9 was on the defendants and they did not lead any evidence.
29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court is the judgment of Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao, AIR 1999 SC 1441 has categorically observed that:
"16. Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High Courts and the Privy Council beginning from the decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh v. Gurdial Singh and Anr. This was followed by the Lahore High Court in Kirpa Singh v. Ajaipal Singh and CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 49 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
Ors. AIR (1930) Lahore 1 and the Bombay High Court in Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari v. Radhabai http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P. (PD)No.2182 of 2019 Krishnarao Deshmukh AIR (1931) Bombay 97.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter v. Narsingh Nandkishore Rawat also followed the Privy Council decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh's case (supra). The Allahabad High Court in Arjun Singh v. Virender Nath and Anr. held that if a party abstains from entering the witness box, it would give rise to an inference adverse against him. Similarly, a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Bhagwan Dass v. Bhishan Chand and Ors. drew a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act against a party who did not enter into the witness box." The above ratio was followed by this Court in 2016 (4) CTC 158, Thomas and another vs. Thiyagarajan."
30. In view of abovesaid discussion and settled law, I am of the considered opinion that when defendants abstained from entering the witness box then it would give rise to an inference adverse against them. Hence, issue no. 6 & 9 are decided against the defendants.
31. Defendants also did not led any evidence to prove issue no. 7 despite the fact that onus was on the parties. The plaintiff filed his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW-1/A, where he reiterated the contents of the plaint and have relied upon certain documents Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex. PW-1/22 which remained unrebutted as PW-1 was not cross-examined on behalf of defendants. The affidavit of evidence, the pleadings and the supporting documents shows that cause of action arises in favour of the plaintiff to file the present CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 50 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024 Brijesh Kumar Vadhera Vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
suit. Accordingly, issue no. 7 is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue no. 10 Relief:
32. As issue no. 4 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and he has been entitled for a decree of money to the tune of Rs. 19,10,790/- against defendant no. 1 being employer company alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit to the date of decree and interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree to the date of payment. Accordingly, the suit is decided in favour of the plaintiff to the given effect only.
33. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
34. Both the parties shall bear their own costs.
35. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by
Pronounced in the open Court YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.09.30
on this 30th Day of September 2024. 18:03:14 +0530 (DR. YADVENDER SINGH) DISTRICT JUDGE-02, SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS DJ No. 8323/2016 Page 51 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/30.09.2024