Delhi District Court
Jyotish Rai vs M/S. Ipsa Labs Pvt. Ltd on 13 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MAYANK MITTAL,
LD. SCJ-CUM-RC, NORTH -WEST DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. 364/2022
CNR No. DLNW03-000553-2022
In the matter of :-
Sh. Jyotish Rai
S/o Sh. Raj Nath Rai,
R/o H. No. 2945, Street No. 74,
B Block, Sant Nagar, Burari,
Delhi-110084
........Plaintiff
VERSUS
M/s Ipsa Labs Pvt. Ltd.
Office at :
AD-4C, LIG Flats,
Madhuban Chowk, Pitampura,
Delhi-110085
....Defendant
Date of institution : 15.03.2022
Reserved for Judgment : 06.05.2026 Digitally
signed by
MAYANK
Date of decision : 13.05.2026 MAYANK
MITTAL
MITTAL
Date:
2026.05.13
16:57:43
+0530
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.2,96,830/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Only) along with pendentelite and future interest from the date of filing of present suit till realization.
CS No. 364/2022 Jyotish Rai Vs. M/s Ipsa Labs Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 1 of 24 Plaintiff Case
2. The case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint is that plaintiff is working in the sales department and other associates works. Defendant was the employer of plaintiff. It is stated that on 22.11.2011, plaintiff was appointed as Area Sales Manager (Institution) by defendant on a consolidated salary of Rs. 18,000/- per month alongwith local allowances Rs. 130/- per day and Ex-Station Rs. 150/- per day with mobile allowance of Rs. 700/- per month. Further, as per the appointment letter plaintiff was on probation for a period of 6 months w.e.f. 22.11.2011. It is stated that plaintiff accepted the terms of the employment and the salary of plaintiff was reviewed time to time as per the policy of the company. Plaintiff was also paid monthly expenses in his bank account after submission of the expenses bills. Besides, the salary and expenses plaintiff being in sales department was also entitled for the incentive directly linked with the sales. The last drawn salary of plaintiff was Rs. 21,299/- per month, which Digitally signed by plaintiff received till May, 2016. However, his monthly expenses MAYANK MITTAL MAYANK MITTAL Date:
2026.05.13 was around Rs.10,000/- which he used to receive for every 15 16:57:44 +0530 days through bank. Lastly, plaintiff was paid monthly expenses till December, 2015. However, the monthly expenses bill of plaintiff w.e.f. January, 2016 and the incentive for the year 2014 & 2015 were not paid to plaintiff by defendant extending the paucity of funds, despite filing/depositing the appropriate bills. It is stated that defendant despite repeated reminders and requests did not pay the monthly bills and plaintiff overheard in the office that the defendant wants to expel plaintiff from the employment without any rhyme and reasons. The management of defendant CS No. 364/2022 Jyotish Rai Vs. M/s Ipsa Labs Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 2 of 24 even stopped the salary of plaintiff for June, 2016 and onwards on account of paucity of the funds with the management. It is stated that on 14.09.2016, plaintiff sought his balance salary for June 2016, July 2016, August 2016 upon which the management of defendant terminated plaintiff from his employment and that too without extending any reasons. Plaintiff sought his balance dues from defendant but defendant refused to pay amount stating that plaintiff is free to sought recourse available with him. Plaintiff was constrained to send a notice dated 17.04.2017 through "Krantikari General Majdoor Union" upon defendant. On 13.02.2018, the office of Joint Labour Commissioner submitted the Action Taken Report and it was disclosed that defendant despite being served neither came forward nor produced the relevant records. The Office of Joint Labour Commissioner also advised plaintiff to file a proper claim before the Appropriate Authority under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for redressal of the complaint. Accordingly, as per the legal advice received and the advice given by the office of the Jt. Labour Commissioner, Digitally signed by the dispute of plaintiff was referred before the Hon'ble Labour MAYANK MITTAL MAYANK MITTAL Date:
2026.05.13 Court which was registered as LIR No. 2625/2017. It is stated 16:57:41 +0530 that plaintiff being dissatisfied with his earlier counsel engaged a new counsel who advised and apprised plaintiff that his case is not maintainable before the Labour Court since he is not a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act. Therefore, the new counsel of plaintiff advised plaintiff to withdraw the said case from the Hon'ble Labour Court with permission to file the same before appropriate forum. Accordingly, plaintiff filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC before the Hon'ble Labour Court for withdrawal of the CS No. 364/2022 Jyotish Rai Vs. M/s Ipsa Labs Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 3 of 24 proceedings with liberty to file the same before the appropriate court of competent jurisdiction. The said application of plaintiff was allowed by Ld. Presiding Officer of the Labour Court vide its award dated 16.12.2021 granting liberty to plaintiff to file the present suit. Hence, the present suit.
Defendant Case
3. Written statement has been filed on behalf of defendant contended that the suit is liable to be dismissed as the same is filed only to extort money from defendant and also the suit is liable to be dismissed as is barred by limitation. It is stated that plaintiff was appointed as Area Sales Manager vide Appointment Letter dt. 07.12.2012 on monthly CTC Rs.18,544/- per month and he worked with defendant upto June, 2016, he requested for leave till July, 2016 and did not turn up to join the services of defendant w.e.f. 01.08.2016 despite repeated requests to join the services, hence, he is liable for the deduction of salary of two Digitally signed by months as per para 8(c) of appointment letter, as he left the MAYANK MITTAL MAYANK MITTAL Date:
2026.05.13 services of management without prior notice of two months. It is 16:57:43 +0530 averred that the suit is liable to be dismissed as plaintiff has concealed the material facts. It is submitted that plaintiff had withdrawn his claim from Labour Court at the back of defendant as he was going to lose the case of LIR that too after completion of workman evidence and case was listed for management evidence. It is submitted that the defendant is guilty for committing the offence of perjury as he has stated in his affidavit that he was working as Salesman, whereas he was working as Area Sales Manager. In fact, he had filed a false case against the CS No. 364/2022 Jyotish Rai Vs. M/s Ipsa Labs Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 4 of 24 defendant in order to get the back-wages and consequential relief by proving him as workman whereas he was Area Sales Manager, who is not covered under the definition of workman as provided under section 2(S) of I.D. Act. It is stated that defendant is entitled to claim all damages as plaintiff has deliberately filed a false case against defendant due to which defendant was to spend around Rs. 45,000/- on account of said false litigation apart from other damages. The defendant has denied all the allegations levelled in the plaint and prayed for the dismissal of the suit with cost.
4. Replication has not been filed by the plaintiff to the written statement of the defendant.
Issues
5. After completion of pleadings, vide order dated 19.10.2022, the following issues were framed by my learned Digitally signed by Predecessor for trial : MAYANK MITTAL MAYANK MITTAL Date:
2026.05.13 16:57:42 +0530
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 2,96,830/- ? OPP
(ii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD
(iii) Whether the suit is barred by law? OPD
(iv) Whether the material facts are disclosed to Court? OPD
(v) Relief CS No. 364/2022 Jyotish Rai Vs. M/s Ipsa Labs Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 5 of 24 Plaintiff Evidence
6. Plaintiff was examined as PW-1, who tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex. PW1/A has stated and deposed on lines of plaint in his affidavit of examination in chief. He has relied upon the following documents:
(i) Notice dt. 17.04.2017 through Krantikari General Majdoor Union is Ex.PW1/2;
(ii) The certified copy of letter dt. 13.02.2018 is Ex.PW1/3;
(iii) The certified copy of plaint before Labour Court is Ex.PW1/4;
(iv) The certified copy of WS filed before Labour Court is Ex.PW1/5;
(v) The certified copy of application under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC filed before Labour Court mentioned in evidence affidavit-
Ex.PW1/A as Ex.PW1/6 is de-exhibited and now marked as Mark-C;
(vi) The certified copy of Award dt. 16.12.2021 mentioned in Digitally signed by evidence affidavit-Ex.PW1/A as Ex.PW1/7 is de-exhibited and MAYANK MITTAL MAYANK MITTAL Date:
2026.05.13 now marked as Mark-D;
16:57:42 +0530
(vii) Appointment letter dt. 22.11.2011 is Mark A;
(viii) Copy of calculation sheet for incentives is Mark B;
(ix) The copy of bank statement from 07.07.2014 to 14.09.2016 mentioned in evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A as Ex.PW1/1 is de-
exhibited and now marked as Mark E. 6.1. During his cross-examination PW1 deposed that he does not remember the date when he first demanded the amount of Rs. 2,96,830/- from the defendant. He denied the suggestion that he CS No. 364/2022 Jyotish Rai Vs. M/s Ipsa Labs Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 6 of 24 has demanded the above said amount for the first time by means of filing the present suit. He deposed that he knew it since inception that he is not covered within the definition of Workman but of Area Sales Manager. In answer to question, "I put it to you that in the affidavits filed before the Rouse Avenue Labour Court wherein you deposed that you are a salesman with IPSA LABS PVT. LTD. and the affidavit filed before this court wherein you have deposed that you are an area sales manager which one is correct?," the PW1 replied, "I was area sales manager as deposed in affidavit filed before this court." He further deposed that he was area sales manager, however, his counsel mentioned him as salesman. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely before Rouse Avenue Labour Court. He deposed that he has filed bank statements in support of his claim for expenses. He stated that he mentioned about period of limitation in para 13 of his evidence affidavit as per legal advice of his counsel. In the case filed before the Labour Court Karkardoma, he sought monetary compensation from the defendant. He hired new counsel as he Digitally signed by was not satisfied by the service of his previous counsel and he MAYANK MITTAL MAYANK MITTAL Date:
2026.05.13 hired new counsel in the year 2021. He filed his case before the 16:57:41 +0530 Labour Court in 2018. He further stated that the defendant company is an establishment engaged in the trading of goods. When confronted with "document i.e. reference of Labour Court dated 20.07.2017 which is Ex.PW1/D1," PW1 admitted that details of the same as correct and when confronted with "document i.e. evidence affidavit filed by him before Labour Court which is Ex.PW1/D2"witness admitted signature at point X and Y. Witness is shown "document i.e. examination in chief and cross-examination which is Ex.PW1/D3" he admitted that his CS No. 364/2022 Jyotish Rai Vs. M/s Ipsa Labs Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 7 of 24 signature on each page i.e. from page no.21 to 27 of the written statement.
6.2. In answer to questions, "Have you filed any document to show the total expenses of Rs. 89,568/-?," "Have you filed any document to show the annual leave and incentives?," and "Can you tell what relief you had sought in the Labour Case filed by you?," the PW1 replied, "I cannot say whether I have filed any document or not. My monthly salary was Rs. 21,000/- approx."
"Yes, I have filed one document bearing signature of CEO of the company to show the incentives, however, there is no proof regarding the annual leave. It is wrong to suggest that the said document is forged and fabricated." and "I demanded my salary and other dues from the defendant in that case." PW1 further deposed that he filed the case before the Labour Court approx. after 1-1/2 years later of leaving the job. He voluntarily deposed that he did not leave the job on his own, however, defendant gave him stop letter then he stopped working with the defendant. He Digitally signed by denied the suggestion that as per para 8 (6) of appointment letter MAYANK MAYANK MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2026.05.13 he was required to give notice period before leaving the job. 16:57:42 +0530 When witness is shown his para 11 and 13 of his evidence affidavit and asked about Order 23 Rule 11 CPC and Section 14 of the Limitation Act. After seeing the same, witness replied that he is not aware about the contents of para 11 and 13 of his evidence affidavit.
6.3. PW1 deposed that the name of his earlier counsel was Shri Kanta Prasad and he was dissatisfied with his work in Labour Court, therefore, he changed his counsel before the Lock down CS No. 364/2022 Jyotish Rai Vs. M/s Ipsa Labs Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 8 of 24 and hired a new counsel. When witness is shown the document i.e. demand notice (Ex.PW1/2) and asked have you filed any document to show the service of said demand notice upon the defendant. After seeing the record, witness stated that no such documents is on record. He denied the suggestion that said demand notice was never served upon the defendant. He denied the suggestion that the present suit is barred by limitation. He deposed that he is not aware whether the defendant is an establishment. He denied the suggestion that he is not legally entitled for bonus and that he withdrew his case from Labour Court as he was supposed to loose that case and also that the calculation of expenses and incentive is wrong and invalid. He denied the suggestion that Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/3 are forged and fabricated documents and that defendant is not liable to pay anything to him. He deposed that he was aware that he was Sales Manager and he had filed the claim before the Labour Court as a Salesman. He denied the suggestion that he has filed the present suit to extort money from the defendant and that defendant has Digitally signed by paid all legal dues as per his appointment letter dated 31.07.2016 MAYANK MITTAL MAYANK MITTAL Date:
2026.05.13 and also that he worked till June, 2016 and sent request for leave 16:57:45 +0530 from July, 2016 or that he was not attending the office of the defendants since 01.08.2016. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
7. Summoned witness Sh. Subhash Sharma, was examined as PW-2, who brought the summoned record i.e. Appointment letter dated 07.02.2012 bearing reference no. ILPL/PER/11- 12/1158. The document which is brought by him is exhibited as Ex.PW-2/A. The calculation sheet of the incentives for the CS No. 364/2022 Jyotish Rai Vs. M/s Ipsa Labs Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 9 of 24 plaintiff not available with the company as the same is ten year old document.
8. Summoned witness Sh. Deepak Kumar, was examined as PW-3, who brought the summoned record i.e. bank statement of Sh. Jyotish Rai for the period 01.06.2014 to 31.12.2016 duly certified by the Bank. The copy of bank statement is Ex.PW3/1.
9. Summoned witness Sh. Mukesh, was examined as PW-4, who brought the summoned record i.e. case file of LIR no. 2625/17 title as Jyotish Rai v. M/s Ipsa Labs Pvt. Ltd. He stated that he has seen the document Mark C and Mark D in the Court file which is copy of the record brought by him and the same is now Ex.PW4/1 and Ex.PW4/2.
10. Plaintiff's evidence was closed on 16.01.2026 and the matter was adjourned for defendant's evidence.
Defendant Evidence Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2026.05.13 16:57:44 +0530
11. Sh. Subhash Sharma, AR of defendant was examined as DW1, who tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex.DW1/A and reiterated on oath the contents of his affidavit. He relied upon following documents :
1. Certified copy of board resolution is Ex. DW1/1;
2. Copy of appointment letter is Ex. DW1/2 (colly) has now been de-exhibited being photocopies and same is marked as Mark A;
3. Copy of reference sent by labour department is Ex. DW1/3 is already as Ex. PW1/D1;
CS No. 364/2022 Jyotish Rai Vs. M/s Ipsa Labs Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 10 of 24
4. Copy of evidence tendered by plaintiff in labour court with cross examination is Ex. DW1/4 is already as Ex. PW1/D3 (colly).
11.1. During his cross examination by ld. Counsel for plaintiff DW1 stated that his evidence affidavit is drafted on his instructions and he is well conversant with the contents of the same. He is working with defendant company since last more than 20 years. There is no HR department in the company since last more than 10 years. All the functions of HR department are now being dealt with by the accounts department. He is the head of accounts department. There are 3 employees in accounts department including him. The plaintiff joined the defendant company on 22.11.2011. The defendant company used to pay bonus annually and also monthly expenses to the plaintiff. He cannot tell what monthly expenses they used to pay to the plaintiff. He deposed that he cannot say whether the last monthly expenses paid to the plaintiff were around Rs.11,000/- or not. He further deposed that he cannot tell till which month they had paid Digitally signed by the monthly expenses to the plaintiff as they have no such record MAYANK MITTAL MAYANK MITTAL Date:
2026.05.13 as of today as their office has destroyed the old record. He stated 16:57:42 +0530 that they were maintaining their books of accounts in computers even prior to appointment of plaintiff with the defendant company. The digital record is also not available with them as they had changed their software. No such record will be available even in their balance sheets filed with the income tax department. He denied the suggestion that the defendant company had not paid monthly expenses to the plaintiff from January, 2016 to September, 2016. The defendant company has paid the monthly expenses to the plaintiff till the date of his working with the CS No. 364/2022 Jyotish Rai Vs. M/s Ipsa Labs Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 11 of 24 company i.e. June, 2016. They had paid the entire bonus amount for all the years accrued to the plaintiff, however, as on today they do not have any record of the same. He denied the suggestion that he is intentionally and deliberately concealing the entire records both in the physical form as well as digital form to defeat the claim of the plaintiff. He deposed that since the plaintiff was working as Area Sales Manager with the defendant company, therefore, plaintiff was also paid incentive directly linked with the sales. The defendant company had no details for the payment of the incentives made to the plaintiff. He stated that he can identify the signature of directors and other officers of the company as he has seen the same during the course of his employment. When witness is shown the document Mark B and asked about the signature on second page at point A, the witness replied that he does not know whose signature it is. As per his knowledge all the payment made to the employees be it of salary, bonus, monthly expenses, incentive linked to sales etc. shall be made only through Bank Accounts. He deposed that he does not Digitally signed by remember account no. from which payment was used to be made MAYANK MITTAL MAYANK MITTAL Date:
2026.05.13 to the plaintiff. He denied the suggestion that he is deliberately 16:57:44 +0530 neither producing the bank statement for the financial year 2014- 16 nor providing the bank account details from where the said payments were made to conceal the fact of non payment of the amount claimed by the plaintiff and that no amount was ever remitted as monthly expenses to the plaintiff by the defendant company from January, 2016 till September, 2016 aggregating to Rs. 89,568/- and also that no bonus was paid to plaintiff for the year 2013-16 amounting to Rs. 65,811/-. He denied the suggestion that an amount of Rs. 74,546/- is due towards the CS No. 364/2022 Jyotish Rai Vs. M/s Ipsa Labs Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 12 of 24 salary for the period 01.06.2016 to 14.09.2016 and that the plaintiff was not paid annual leaves encashment for the year 2013-15 amounting to Rs. 32,905/-. He deposed that the attendance of plaintiff was marked in their register maintained by HR department at that time. The last attendance of plaintiff was till 30.06.2016. He admitted that he cannot bring the attendance register for the month of July, August and September, 2016. He denied the suggestion that he is not deliberately producing the attendance register to conceal the plaintiff's attendance in the said register. He deposed that from 1st July, 2016 the plaintiff was on leave and thereafter plaintiff did not join his duties. He cannot tell for how many days leave he has taken. The plaintiff was on leave for the entire July, 2016. The said leave may be sanctioned leave. After 01.08.2016, there might be a mail sent to plaintiff for his absence from the duties. He denied the suggestion that no mail or communication was ever sent to plaintiff by the defendant company except work stop notice issued on 14.09.2016 and that the plaintiff is entitled for salary as well as Digitally signed by all other benefits till 14.09.2016. He deposed that the case filed MAYANK MITTAL MAYANK MITTAL Date:
2026.05.13 by the plaintiff before the Labour Court was withdrawn by 16:57:43 +0530 plaintiff since he filed a wrong case. He denied the suggestion that the said case was withdrawn by the plaintiff as plaintiff does not fall within the definition of workman under Workman's Compensation Act. He denied the suggestion that he is concealing all the documents, records and information involving payment of plaintiff salary and other benefits to defeat the rights of the plaintiff to recover the unpaid amount. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
CS No. 364/2022 Jyotish Rai Vs. M/s Ipsa Labs Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 13 of 24
12. Thereafter, the defendant's evidence was closed on 09.03.2026 and matter was listed for final arguments.
13. Final arguments have been heard. I have gone through the judicial record.
14. Now I shall give my issue-wise findings.
Issue No.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 2,96,830/- ? OPP The burden of proving this issue was on the plaintiff. In order to discharge the burden of proving the above said issue, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1. He has also examined PW-2 and PW-3 for bringing the record. PW1 has deposed on the line of plaint in his affidavit tendered during his examination in chief and has been cross examined at length during his cross- examination. Defendant had examined only one witness during Digitally signed by DE as DW1, who had deposed on the line of written statement in MAYANK MITTAL MAYANK MITTAL Date:
2026.05.13 his affidavits tendered during his respective examination in chief 16:57:43 +0530 and had been cross examined at length during his cross- examination.
No final arguments were advanced on behalf of plaintiff as their right to advance final arguments was closed on 06.05.2026 as plaintiff has not exercised its right to advance final arguments on 24.03.2026, 09.04.2026 and had also sought adjournment on 06.05.2026 for advancing final arguments. On behalf of plaintiff, written submissions had been filed as synopsis of final arguments. As per written synopsis, the defendant has stopped CS No. 364/2022 Jyotish Rai Vs. M/s Ipsa Labs Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 14 of 24 making payment of salary to plaintiff from June, 2016 and expenses to which plaintiff was entitled was not paid from January, 2016. It is the case of plaintiff that instead of paying the pending salary and expenses, in August, 2016, defendant had terminated the plaintiff without assigning any reasons. It is submitted that the plaintiff worked with the defendant till 16.09.2016 and there is no dispute with regard to the last drawn salary i.e. Rs. 21,299/-, which is clear from the bank statement of plaintiff Ex.PW3/1. It is the case of plaintiff that as defendant has been alleging that plaintiff has worked only till 30.06.2016, it was for the defendant to produce the attendance register to show that defendant did not work after 30.06.2016, however, no such register was produced on behalf of defendant.
It is mentioned in written submission that though the burden to prove its case was on plaintiff, however, when plaintiff has proved the existence of employer and employee relationship between the parties, the onus shifted to the defendant to produce the relevant register. Digitally signed by Ld counsel for defendant has vehemently and strongly MAYANK MITTAL MAYANK MITTAL Date:
2026.05.13 objected to the claim of plaintiff during final arguments. It is 16:57:44 +0530 submitted that present case is nothing but a mean adopted by plaintiff to extort the money from the defendant. It is submitted that plaintiff had earlier filed a suit before the Ld. Labour Court with the same mala fide intention, however, observing that the claim of plaintiff is going to be defeated, the plaintiff has withdrawn the proceedings filed by him before Ld. Labour Court. It is submitted that as per the appointment letter, admitted by both the parties, the plaintiff was required to give 2 months prior notice before leaving the employment of defendant. It is CS No. 364/2022 Jyotish Rai Vs. M/s Ipsa Labs Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 15 of 24 submitted that plaintiff worked with the defendant till June, 2016 and after which plaintiff has requested leave for the month of July. It is submitted that on 01.08.2016, plaintiff voluntarily abandoned his services and failed to report for duty, despite, repeated request and communication by defendant to the plaintiff to rejoin the duties. It is submitted that as plaintiff has not served 2 months prior notice before leaving his employment on 01.08.2016, the defendant has rightly not paid salary for the month of June and July, 2016. It is further submitted that plaintiff has not brought any evidence to show his entitlement to the recovery of Rs. 2,96,830/- which includes salary, monthly expense, annual leaves, bonus and incentives. Ld. Counsel for defendant has relied upon the cross examination of plaintiff before the Ld. Labour Court Ex.DW1/4 or Ex.PW1/D3, where before Ld. Labour Court, the plaintiff has admitted that he was admitted in hospital during the period from 01.08.2016 onwards as he was suffering from chickengunia. It is submitted that the same shows that the claim of plaintiff is false and frivolous not Digitally signed by only for a period from June, 2016 onwards, but the whole of the MAYANK MITTAL MAYANK MITTAL Date:
2026.05.13 claim sought by the plaintiff from this court. It is further 16:57:42 +0530 submitted that there is no default on the part of defendant in not producing the registers sought from defendant by the plaintiff during cross-examination of DW-1 as under the provisions of Delhi Shops and Establishment Rules, 1954, the establishment is duty bound to preserve the registers etc. till the end of following year. It is submitted that plaintiff has admitted during his cross- examination that defendant is a establishment and there is no dispute with regard to the position of defendant as establishment.
CS No. 364/2022 Jyotish Rai Vs. M/s Ipsa Labs Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 16 of 24 From the consideration of arguments and perusal of record including written submission filed by both the sides, it is noticed that as plaintiff has claimed the arrears of salary, bonus, leave encashment and incentives etc, the burden of proof to prove that plaintiff was entitled to the claimed salary, bonus, leave encashment and incentives etc, and there was arrear as alleged on behalf of plaintiff, was on plaintiff. There is no merit in the submissions that once the plaintiff has proved the existence of employee and employer relationship between plaintiff and defendant, the onus shifted to defendant to disprove the case of plaintiff. There is no doubt that the record of attendance, payment of salary and other benefits must have been in the custody of defendant, however, the burden was on the plaintiff to prove the same in the court, either by calling the witness from the office of defendant as plaintiff has called PW-2 Sh. Shubhash Sharma or by giving notice to the defendant u/o 12 rule 8 CPC r/w section 64 and 60 of BSA, 2023 and to lead secondary evidence in case of non production of record by defendant in Digitally signed by pursuance of notice u/o 12 rule 8 CPC and r/w section 64 and 60 MAYANK MITTAL MAYANK MITTAL Date:
2026.05.13 of BSA, 2023. Admittedly, no such notice was ever issued by 16:57:43 +0530 plaintiff to the defendant to produce the record, which would have entitled the plaintiff to lead secondary evidence and no secondary evidence has actually been led by the plaintiff.
In the case at hand, to discharge the burden of proving this issue, the plaintiff has proved his appointment letter Ex.PW2/A, which provides the salary of plaintiff and his allowances at the time of his appointment with the defendant. The said appointment, salary and allowances has not been disputed by defendant. The plaintiff has also relied upon the bank account CS No. 364/2022 Jyotish Rai Vs. M/s Ipsa Labs Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 17 of 24 statement Ex.PW3/1 so as to show he was receiving the salary of Rs. 21,299/-. Though, it is noticed from Ex.PW3/1 that plaintiff was getting a sum of Rs. 21,299/- monthly from the defendant, however, there is no proof to show that sum of Rs. 21,299/- was only on account of salary or whether that sum is a composite amount which was being received by plaintiff as salary and allowances. There is nothing on record, from which it can be inferred as to what was the last drawn salary and what was the actual allowances for which the plaintiff was entitled. The plaintiff has not being able to prove the time till when, the plaintiff has actually worked or was in the employment of defendant. The plaintiff has not only, not proved any attendance register or record of defendant in this regard but plaintiff has also not placed on record any communication between plaintiff and defendant or between the plaintiff and the client of defendants and its reporting by plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff has also not placed on record the details of any sale initiated, deliberated or finalized by plaintiff during the disputed period Digitally signed by from 01.06.2016 till 14.09.2016. The plaintiff has also not MAYANK MITTAL MAYANK MITTAL Date:
2026.05.13 proved any reporting done by him to the defendant during the 16:57:45 +0530 abovestated disputed period. From the cross-examination of DW-1, it can be noticed that plaintiff has not disputed the availing of leave by plaintiff during the whole month of July, 2016. The plaintiff has itself stated in the proceeding before Ld. Labour Court that he was admitted in hospital from 01.08.2016 to 14.09.2016.
On the basis of above discussion, the plaintiff could not discharge the burden of proving the exact salary and allowances as well as the period for which the said salary and allowances CS No. 364/2022 Jyotish Rai Vs. M/s Ipsa Labs Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 18 of 24 were not paid by defendant to the plaintiff. The issue is decided against the plaintiff.
Issue no. 2, 3 and 4:
Issue No.2: Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD Issue No.3: Whether the suit is barred by law? OPD Issue No.4: Whether the material facts are disclosed to Court? OPD The burden of proving these issues was on defendant. The defendant has vehemently submitted that present suit filed by plaintiff is barred by limitation and provisions of section 14 of Limitation Act can not come to the rescue of plaintiff as the earlier proceeding for the same relief, filed before Ld. Labour Court, was not filed and prosecuted in good faith and with due Digitally signed by diligence. It is submitted that the mala fide of plaintiff can be MAYANK MAYANK MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2026.05.13 observed from the fact that plaintiff, who was appointed as area 16:57:44 +0530 sales manager by the defendant, has mentioned himself as salesman in the proceeding before Ld. Labour Court. It is submitted that same cannot be said to be a mere mistake of counsel as the plaintiff has mentioned himself as salesman in the complaint as well as in the notice issued to the defendant through the Labour Union. It is submitted that the manipulation in the designation of plaintiff was done by the plaintiff so as to bring the claim of plaintiff within the jurisdiction of Ld. Labour Court. It is submitted that when plaintiff came to know that said CS No. 364/2022 Jyotish Rai Vs. M/s Ipsa Labs Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 19 of 24 manipulation has come to the knowledge of Ld. Labour Court and the claim of plaintiff is going to be defeated, the plaintiff has withdrawn the proceeding at the back of defendant.
On behalf of plaintiff, no efforts has been made to counter the submissions advanced on behalf of defendant with regard to non-applicability of section 14 of Limitation Act.
For the purposes of deciding whether plaintiff is entitled to the protection of section 14 of Limitation Act, the plaintiff is required to show earlier proceedings were civil in nature, was prosecuted in good faith by the plaintiff, where the earlier court due to defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature was not able to entertain it. In this regard, court is guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in RFA(COMM) 389/2024 titled as "ROOPINDER SINGH VS. EMAAR MGF LTD. & ORS." decided on 04.11.2025:-
29. Section 14 of the Limitation Act seeks to protect a litigant who, in good faith, has pursued a remedy before a court that ultimately lacks jurisdiction or competence to decide the matter. Digitally In essence, it ensures that the time spent bona fide litigating signed by MAYANK before an incompetent forum is excluded while calculating the MAYANK MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2026.05.13 period of limitation for filing the same claim before a competent 16:57:42 +0530 forum. This protection extends not only to suits but also to applications filed before courts of first instance, appellate, or revisional jurisdiction.
30. However, to invoke the benefit of this section, inter alia, two essential conditions must be satisfied, namely, the litigant must have acted with due diligence, meaning that all reasonable steps were taken without unnecessary delay; and the proceeding must have been pursued in good faith.
31. The Explanation to Section 14 further clarifies that both the day on which the earlier proceeding was instituted and the day it concluded shall be included while computing the exclusion period. It also provides that a party resisting an appeal shall be CS No. 364/2022 Jyotish Rai Vs. M/s Ipsa Labs Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 20 of 24 deemed to be prosecuting a proceeding and that even misjoinder of parties or causes of action constitutes a defect of a like nature.
32. To claim the benefit of this provision, the litigant must establish good faith as defined under Section 2(h) of the Limitation Act, which states as follows:
"(h) "good faith" - nothing shall be deemed to be done in good faith which is not done with due care and attention"
33. On a plain reading, it is evident that the essence of good faith lies not in the outcome of the proceedings but in the honesty and reasonableness with which the litigant pursued them. Therefore, as long as a party‟s choice of forum was guided by a bona fide belief, exercised with due care and without negligence, the protection under Section 14 of the Limitation Act would apply.
34. The true intent and scope of Section 14 have been clearly elucidated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Irrigation Deptt.14, wherein it was observed that the legislative intent behind this provision is to safeguard litigants who, despite acting bona fide and diligently, are precluded from pursuing their remedies on the merits due to a jurisdictional or procedural defect. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
"21. Section 14 of the Limitation Act deals with exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in a court without jurisdiction. On analysis of the said section, it becomes evident that the following conditions must be satisfied before Section 14 can be pressed into service: Digitally signed by (1) Both the prior and subsequent proceedings are civil MAYANK MAYANK MITTAL proceedings prosecuted by the same party; MITTAL Date:
2026.05.13 16:57:41 (2) The prior proceeding had been prosecuted with due +0530 diligence and in good faith;
(3) The failure of the prior proceeding was due to defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature; (4) The earlier proceeding and the latter proceeding must relate to the same matter in issue and;
(5) Both the proceedings are in a court.
22. The policy of the section is to afford protection to a litigant against the bar of limitation when he institutes a proceeding which by reason of some technical defect cannot be decided on merits and is dismissed. While considering the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, proper approach will have to be adopted and the provisions will have to be interpreted so as to advance the cause of justice rather than abort the proceedings. It will be well to bear in mind that an element of mistake is inherent in the invocation of Section
14. In fact, the section is intended to provide relief against the CS No. 364/2022 Jyotish Rai Vs. M/s Ipsa Labs Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 21 of 24 bar of limitation in cases of mistaken remedy or selection of a wrong forum. On reading Section 14 of the Act it becomes clear that the legislature has enacted the said section to exempt a certain period covered by a bona fide litigious activity. Upon the words used in the section, it is not possible to sustain the interpretation that the principle underlying the said section, namely, that the bar of limitation should not affect a person honestly doing his best to get his case tried on merits but failing because the court is unable to give him such a trial, would not be applicable to an application filed under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. The principle is clearly applicable not only to a case in which a litigant brings his application in the court, that is, a court having no jurisdiction to entertain it but also where he brings the suit or the application in the wrong court in consequence of bona fide mistake or (sic of) law or defect of procedure. Having regard to the intention of the legislature this Court is of the firm opinion that the equity underlying Section 14 should be applied to its fullest extent and time taken diligently pursuing a remedy, in a wrong court, should be excluded. *****
31. To attract the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, five conditions enumerated in the earlier part of this judgment have to co-exist [Ed.: See para 21, above.] . There is no manner of doubt that the section deserves to be construed liberally. Due diligence and caution are essential prerequisites for attracting Section 14. Due diligence cannot be measured by any absolute standards. Due diligence is a measure of prudence or activity expected from and ordinarily exercised by a reasonable and prudent person under the particular circumstances. The time during which a court holds Digitally up a case while it is discovering that it ought to have been signed by MAYANK MAYANK presented in another court, must be excluded, as the delay of MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2026.05.13 the court cannot affect the due diligence of the party. Section 16:57:45 +0530 14 requires that the prior proceeding should have been prosecuted in good faith and with due diligence. The definition of good faith as found in Section 2(h) of the Limitation Act would indicate that nothing shall be deemed to be in good faith which is not done with due care and attention. It is true that Section 14 will not help a party who is guilty of negligence, lapse or inaction. However, there can be no hard-and-fast rule as to what amounts to good faith. It is a matter to be decided on the facts of each case. It will, in almost every case be more or less a question of degree. The mere filing of an application in wrong court would not prima facie show want of good faith. There must be no pretended mistake intentionally made with a view to delaying the proceedings or harassing the opposite party. In the light of these principles, the question will have to be considered whether the appellant had prosecuted the matter in other CS No. 364/2022 Jyotish Rai Vs. M/s Ipsa Labs Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 22 of 24 courts with due diligence and in good faith ." (emphasis supplied) In the case at hand, in the earlier proceeding, the plaintiff has mentioned himself as salesman, though he has deposed during his cross-examination in the present case that he was appointed as area sales manager and not salesman and further that he had knowledge about the same from the very beginning.
The plaintiff has not given any explanation regarding mentioning his post as salesman before Ld. Labour Court and not mentioning his correct post as Area Sales Manager, except that his earlier counsel has mentioned him as salesman in the earlier petition. In the case at hand, the prosecution of proceeding before Ld. Labour Court by the plaintiff cannot be said to be in good faith as plaintiff has tried to manipulate his designation so as to bring the case within the jurisdiction of Ld. Labour Court, despite the specific knowledge of plaintiff as deposed by him in the present case that he was appointed as Area Sales Manager and not the Salesman. Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK In view of above discussion, the plaintiff is not entitled to MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2026.05.13 16:57:44 +0530 exclusion of time of proceeding before Ld. Labour Court as the same proceeding was not conducted by plaintiff in good faith.
The plaintiff has alleged that defendant being the employer was duty bound to produce the record of employment of the plaintiff with the defendant and as defendant has not purposely brought the record, the defendant has concealed the material fact to defeat the claim of plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for defendant has rightly pointed out that defendant was duty bound to keep the record only till the end of following year. Even otherwise, the burden of proof to prove its case was on plaintiff as discussed CS No. 364/2022 Jyotish Rai Vs. M/s Ipsa Labs Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 23 of 24 while deciding issue no. 1 and same does not shift to the defendant merely because there existed the relationship of employer and employee between the parties. The plaintiff has not also proved any notice issued by plaintiff to the defendant to produce any specific document. Accordingly, the plaintiff could not prove the concealment of facts by the defendant.
In view of above discussion, issue no. 2, 3 and 4 are decided in favour of defendant.
Relief
15. In the light of above discussions and my issue wise findings given above, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed and defendant is entitled to cost of the suit.
16. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by MAYANK Announced in the Open Court MAYANK MITTAL MITTAL Date:
on 13.05.2026 2026.05.13 16:57:43 +0530 (Mayank Mittal) Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, North West District : Rohini Courts : Delhi CS No. 364/2022 Jyotish Rai Vs. M/s Ipsa Labs Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 24 of 24