Delhi District Court
Gopendra Kumar Sharma vs M/S Mobile Repair Service City India ... on 21 May, 2025
Page 1 of 13
IN THE COURT OF MS. NAVITA KUMARI BAGHA, DJ-02 (SOUTH-EAST),
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS No.263/2023
CNR No. DLSE01-004039-2023
Gopendra Kumar Sharma
S/o Late S.N. Sharma
R/o A-2/A-51, Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110058
............. Plaintiff
Versus
1. Mobile Repair Service City India Ltd.
B-1/E-22, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044
Also at:
Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar,
Jogeshwari, Vikhroli Road,
Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai,
Maharashtra-400060
2. Shrikumar Menon (Name deleted vide order dated 15.12.2023)
Director, Mobile Repair Service City India Ltd.
Dubai Residential Oasis,
Damascus Road, Al Qusais,
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
3. Faisal Al Bannai (Name deleted vide order dated 15.12.2023)
Authorized Signatory, Mobile Repair Service City India Ltd.
Villa No.18, 375 Albarsha 3rd,
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
............ Defendants
Date of Institution : 11.04.2023
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 21.05.2025
navita
CS DJ No.263/2023 kumari
Gopendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Mobile Repair Service City India Ltd. & Ors. bagha
Digitally signed by
navita kumari bagha
Date: 2025.05.21
17:06:35 +0530
Page 2 of 13
Suit for Recovery of Rs.1,19,01,319/- alongwith interest
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit was filed by plaintiff on 11.04.2023 against defendant no.1, 2 & 3 for recovery of arrears of his salary and other benefits due to him since April, 2020 amounting to Rs.1,19,01,319/- (Rupees One Crore Nineteen Lakhs One Thousand Three Hundred and Nineteen only) with interest @ 12% per annum The brief facts of the suit as narrated in the Plaint are as follows:
1.1 That the defendant no.1 is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and defendant no.2 is its' Director and defendant no.3 is its' Authorized Signatory to operate its' bank accounts.
1.2 That vide Appointment Letter dated 23.06.2008, the plaintiff was appointed as Repair Factory Manager (Senior Manager) of defendant no.1 at its' office situated at A-27, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044 at annual salary of Rs.20,52,705/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Fifty-Two Digitally signed by CS DJ No.263/2023 navita navita Gopendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Mobile Repair Service City India Ltd. & Ors. kumari kumari bagha Date:
bagha 2025.05.21
17:06:43
+0530
Page 3 of 13
Thousand Seven Hundred and Five only). Later on, the said office was shifted to B-1/E-22, Mohan Co-
operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.
1.3 That the gross monthly salary of the plaintiff in the year 2019 was Rs.2,82,050/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty-Two Thousand and Fifty only). The plaintiff was paid salary up to March, 2020, but thereafter, the defendants stopped paying his salary. The plaintiff made multiple calls and also wrote to Defendant no. 2 and 3 and requested them to pay his salary and other dues but he did not receive any response from the defendants. Since the plaintiff was finding it extremely hard to sustain himself due to non- payment of his salary, therefore, he filed the present suit for recovery of arrears of his salary and other dues amounting to Rs.1,19,01,319/- (Rupees One Crore Nineteen Lakhs One Thousand Three Hundred and Nineteen only) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. Digitally signed by navita navita kumari kumari bagha bagha Date:
2025.05.21 17:06:47 CS DJ No.263/2023 +0530 Gopendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Mobile Repair Service City India Ltd. & Ors. Page 4 of 13
2. Summons of the suit were issued to defendants, but despite service of summons, nobody appeared on behalf of defendant no.1 and therefore, defendant no.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 16.09.2023. The defendant no.2 & 3 filed their respective Written Statements on 05.10.2023 and also moved applications U/O.1 R.10 CPC for deletion of their names from the array of parties. The said applications were allowed vide order dated 15.12.2023 and the names of defendant no.2 & 3 were deleted from the array of parties.
3. In plaintiff's evidence, the plaintiff has examined only one witness i.e. himself as PW-1. In his affidavit of evidence i.e. Ex.PW-1/A, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the Plaint. While reiterating the facts, mentioned in the Plaint, he, in order to prove his case, has exhibited/marked the following documents:
(i) Ex.PW-1/1 - Appointment Letter dated 23.06.2008.
(ii) Ex.PW-1/2 - Increment Letter dated 23.10.2012.
(iii) Ex.PW-1/3 - Copy of Salary Slip for the month of September, 2019. (Certificate U/Sec.63 BSA, 2023 also filed in this regard.) navita kumari bagha Digitally signed by CS DJ No.263/2023 navita kumari bagha Date: 2025.05.21 Gopendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Mobile Repair Service City India Ltd. & Ors. 17:06:52 +0530 Page 5 of 13
(iv) Ex.PW-1/4 - Certified copy of Account Statement for the period starting from 01.01.2019 to 31.12.2019.
(v) Ex.PW1/5 - Certified copy of Account Statement for the period starting from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2023.
(vi) Ex.PW1/6 - Copy of e-mail dated 05.07.2020 written by plaintiff to defendant no.2 & 3 requesting therein to pay his salary.
(Certificate U/Sec.63 BSA, 2023 also filed in this regard.)
(vii) Ex.PW1/7 - Copy of e-mail dated 09.06.2020. (Certificate U/Sec.63 BSA, 2023 also filed in this regard.)
(viii) Mark-A - Copy of order dated 09.11.2022.
(ix) Mark-B - Copy of judgment dated 09.11.2022.
(x) Mark-C - Copy of sheet detailing amount owed by defendant.
(xi) Ex.PW1/9 - Certificate U/Sec.63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA).
4. I have heard the final arguments from Counsel Sh. Madhur Mahajan for plaintiff and perused the record. Digitally signed by navita navita kumari kumari bagha bagha Date:
2025.05.21 17:06:57 +0530 CS DJ No.263/2023 Gopendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Mobile Repair Service City India Ltd. & Ors. Page 6 of 13
5. The counsel for plaintiff has submitted that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit as the plaintiff was appointed at the office of defendant at A-27, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044 vide Appointment Letter dated 23.06.2008 i.e. Ex.PW-1/1 and since the said office falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to try the present case.
6. Since the defendant is ex-parte in this case, therefore, the evidence of plaintiff has gone unchallenged and unrebutted and in his unopposed testimony, the PW-1 has duly proved his Appointment Letter i.e. Ex.PW-1/1. Since as per the said Appointment Letter, the plaintiff was appointed at defendant's office at A-27, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044, which lies within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, it is held that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present case.
7. Regarding the point of limitation, the counsel for plaintiff has argued that the present suit is well within the period of limitation, in view of the orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court during the Covid period vide which the period starting from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was excluded Digitally signed by navita navita kumari kumari bagha CS DJ No.263/2023 bagha Date:
2025.05.21 Gopendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Mobile Repair Service City India Ltd. & Ors.
17:07:02 +0530 Page 7 of 13 from the period of limitation. In the present case, the limitation started running w.e.f. 01.05.2020 i.e. from the date of non-payment of salary by defendant no.1 to plaintiff and it expired on 01.05.2023, whereas the present suit was filed on 11.04.2023 i.e. before the expiry of period of limitation. But apart from the salary, the plaintiff has claimed other dues viz. variable pay, bonus, etc. due since the year 2019-20 for which the period of limitation had started running w.e.f. 01.04.2020 and expired on 01.04.2023. But it is well known fact that during the Covid-19 pandemic period, the limitation was extended from time to time by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In case titled as In re:
Cognizance for extension of limitation (Misc. Application No.21 of 2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020), 2022(3) SCC 117, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had extended the period of limitation during the Covid period as follows:
"It is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. navita kumari bagha Digitally signed by navita kumari bagha Date: 2025.05.21 CS DJ No.263/2023 17:07:06 +0530 Gopendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Mobile Repair Service City India Ltd. & Ors. Page 8 of 13
Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply."
8. Thus, as per the aforesaid order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 has stood excluded for the purposes of limitation. In the present case, the period of limitation started running from 01.04.2020 and if the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 is excluded while computing the limitation period, then the limitation to file the present case would have expired on 01.03.2025, whereas the present suit was filed on 11.04.2023, which means that the suit is filed well within the period of limitation. Digitally signed by navita navita kumari kumari bagha bagha Date:
2025.05.21 17:07:10 +0530 CS DJ No.263/2023 Gopendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Mobile Repair Service City India Ltd. & Ors. Page 9 of 13
9. The counsel for plaintiff has submitted that the plaintiff in the present case has claimed recovery of Rs.1,19,01,319/- which includes Rs.98,71,750/- (as arrears of salary w.e.f. 01.04.2020 to 28.02.2023), Rs.7,80,000/- (as variable pay for three years i.e. 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22), Rs.60,000/- (as bonus), Rs.2,46,009/- (as leave encashment) and Rs.7,09,641/- (as gratuity).
10. So far as the arrears of salary is concerned, in his unchallenged and uncontroverted testimony, the plaintiff/PW-1 has duly proved that he was appointed by defendant no.1 as its Repair Factory Manager (Senior Manager) vide Appointment Letter dated 23.06.2008 i.e. Ex.PW-1/1 at annual salary of Rs.20,52,705/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Fifty-Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Five only) and his annual salary was increased to Rs.32,35,918/- (Rupees Thirty-Two Lakhs Thirty-Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighteen only) w.e.f. 01.07.2012 vide Increment Letter dated 23.10.2012 i.e. Ex.PW-1/2. The plaintiff/PW-1 has duly proved his Salary Slip of September, 2019 as Ex.PW-1/3 as per which his monthly salary in September, 2019 was Rs.2,82,050/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty-Two Thousand and Fifty only). He has proved his Bank Statements as Ex.PW-1/4 and Ex.PW-1/5 as per which he was paid salary up to March, 2020. Thus, Digitally signed by CS DJ No.263/2023 navita navita kumari kumari bagha Gopendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Mobile Repair Service City India Ltd. & Ors. Date:
bagha 2025.05.21 17:07:15 +0530 Page 10 of 13 the plaintiff has duly proved that he was employee of defendant no.1 i.e. Mobile Repair Service City India Ltd. and his monthly salary in September, 2019 was Rs.2,82,050/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty-Two Thousand and Fifty only), but he was not paid salary by defendant no.1 w.e.f. 01.04.2020. Since the defendant no.1 has not paid salary to plaintiff w.e.f. 01.04.2020, therefore, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover his salary from defendant no.1 @ Rs.2,82,050/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty-Two Thousand and Fifty only) per month w.e.f. 01.04.2020 to 28.02.2023 as claimed by the plaintiff.
11. Regarding the other segment of claimed amount i.e. Rs.7,80,000/-
(variable pay), the plaintiff/PW-1 vide Appointment Letter Ex.PW-1/1 and Increment Letter Ex.PW-1/2 has duly proved that he was granted variable pay by the defendant no.1. As per Ex.PW-1/1, initially, the plaintiff was paid variable pay of Rs.1,25,000/- annually, which was later on increased to Rs.2,60,000/- annually vide Increment Letter dated 23.10.2012 i.e. Ex.PW-1/2. The counsel for plaintiff has submitted that the plaintiff has claimed variable pay for three years i.e. for 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22. Since the testimony of PW-1 has gone unchallenged, therefore, it has stood proved that he has not been paid variable pay for the aforesaid period, therefore, it is held that the Digitally signed by navita navita kumari CS DJ No.263/2023 bagha kumari Date:
Gopendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Mobile Repair Service City India Ltd. & Ors. bagha 2025.05.21 17:07:20 +0530 Page 11 of 13 plaintiff is entitled to recover variable pay for the aforesaid three years @ Rs.2,60,000/- per annum, total amounting to Rs.7,80,000/-.
12. Now, so far as the other components of claimed amount i.e. Rs.60,000/- (bonus) and Rs.2,46,009/- (leave encashment) are concerned, the plaintiff/PW-1 has failed to place on record and prove any document to show that he was entitled to such bonus and leave encashment and therefore, the claim of plaintiff pertaining to aforesaid bonus and leave encashment is declined.
13. Now coming to the last but not the least segment of claimed amount i.e. Rs.7,09,641/- (claimed as gratuity), the plaintiff/PW-1 has proved that at the time of his appointment vide Appointment Letter Ex.PW-1/1, he was made entitled to gratuity as per law, accruable after five years of service and the same was mentioned even in his Increment Letter Ex.PW-1/2. As per Sec.4 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, an employee becomes entitled to gratuity after completion of five years of service. The plaintiff has proved that he was recruited in service by defendant no.1 in the year 2008 and has been paid salary up to March, 2020. Thus, the plaintiff has completed more than five years of service with defendant no.1 and accordingly, he has become entitled Digitally signed by navita navita kumari kumari bagha bagha Date:
CS DJ No.263/2023 2025.05.21
17:07:25
Gopendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Mobile Repair Service City India Ltd. & Ors. +0530
Page 12 of 13
to gratuity. The counsel for plaintiff has submitted that since the plaintiff has completed 15 years in service with defendant no.1, therefore, the defendant no.1 is liable to pay gratuity amount of Rs.7,09,641/- {i.e. Rs.82,050/- (basic salary) x 15/26 x 15 (years of service)} as per Sec.5 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The plaintiff/PW-1 has also deposed in his affidavit of evidence that he is entitled to gratuity to the tune of Rs.7,09,641/- and his testimony has gone unopposed and unrebutted. Therefore, for the reasons aforementioned, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.7,09,641/- from defendant no.1 towards gratuity amount.
14. Hence, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.1 for Rs.98,71,750/- (arrears of salary w.e.f. 01.04.2020 to 28.02.2023), Rs.7,80,000/- (variable pay) and Rs.7,09,641/- (gratuity) total amounting to Rs.1,13,61,391/- (Rupees One Crore Thirteen Lakhs Sixty-one Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety-One only) alongwith pendent-lite interest @ 9% per annum and future interest @ 6% per annum till realization. Costs of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
Digitally signed by navita navita kumari kumari bagha Date:
bagha 2025.05.21
17:07:28
+0530
CS DJ No.263/2023
Gopendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Mobile Repair Service City India Ltd. & Ors. Page 13 of 13
15. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by navita navita kumari kumari bagha (Announced in open bagha Date:
2025.05.21 Court on 21.05.2025) 17:07:31 +0530 (Navita Kumari Bagha) DJ-02, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi CS DJ No.263/2023 Gopendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Mobile Repair Service City India Ltd. & Ors.