Delhi District Court
Arya Kumar Muduli vs Spectar Digi Services Pvt Ltd on 6 June, 2024
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-01, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY SH. SAHIL KHURMI
CNR No:-DLCT030057872019
CS SCJ No.2495/2019
Arya Kumar Muduli
S/o Sh. Rabindra Kumar Muduli
R/o D-66B, 4th Floor,
Shakarpur, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi-110092. ...Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Spectar Digi Services Pvt Ltd
Through its Managing Director
2109, 1st and 2nd Floor,
Desh Bandhu Gupta Road,
Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005.
Also at:
B-03, FF Uppal,
Sohna Road, Gurugram,
Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. ...Defendant
Sahil
Date of institution of suit 13.08.2019
Khurmi
Date on which reserved for judgment 29.05.2024
Date of pronouncement of judgment 06.06.2024
Digitally signed
Decision: Partly Decreed by Sahil Khurmi
Date:
2024.06.06
17:33:29 +0530
CS SCJ No.2495/2019 Page No.1 of 20
SUIT FOR COMPENSATION AND DAMAGES FOR
WRONGFUL DISMISSAL & BREACH OF CONTRACT.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS:
1. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts as per the plaint are that defendant No.1 i.e. M/s Spectar Digi Services Pvt Ltd is the vendor to defendant No.2 and the plaintiff received an email dated 31.01.2019 whereby his interview was scheduled on 01.02.2019 at the office of defendant No.2. 1.1 It is further stated that on 01.02.2019, the plaintiff finished his interview and got selected, which was confirmed vide email dated 02.02.2019 by the director of defendant No.1 and the plaintiff was appointed to the post of Consultant Workplace Support Engineer at salary of Rs.25,000/- per month. The plaintiff has filed the offer letter dated 02.02.2019 on record. 1.2 That on 01.05.2019 the plaintiff received telephonic call from Dheeraj Thakur (Human Resource) and told him to put his resignation. That on being asked for the reason, the defendants did not reply to his queries. That on 03.05.2019, the defendant No.1 sent an email answering his queries regarding his performance.
1.3 That on 07.05.2019, plaintiff sent email to the defendants regarding his work performance. That on 07.05.2019, plaintiff received an email from directors of defendant No.1 acknowledging that they are downsizing the work force. That the Sahil plaintiff requested the defendants to update his KYC but to no Khurmi avail. It is further stated that the defendant has violated the clause Digitally signed by Sahil Khurmi Date: 2024.06.06 CS SCJ No.2495/2019 Page No.2 of 20 17:33:41 +0530 no. 10 of the Offer Letter Cum Contract. That the plaintiff has not been given experience certificate and relieving letter from the defendant. Hence, the present suit.
2. Summons of the suit have been served on the defendants, upon which defendants appeared through counsel and the matter was listed for filing of written statement on behalf of defendants.
3. It is pertinent to mention that vide Order dated 29.10.2021, the defendant No.2 was deleted from the array of parties on application u/O 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by defendant No.2.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NO.1.
4. It is stated by defendant No.1 that no term of the offer letter has been violated by defendant and rather the plaintiff has himself stopped coming to the work. It is further stated that vide email dated 03.05.2019 defendant No.1 had communicated the plaintiff that defendant No.2 has informed defendant No.1 about the performance of the plaintiff which was not up to the mark. It is further stated that defendant No.1 had never asked for resignation from the plaintiff. That on 07.05.2019, defendant No.1 informed the plaintiff about the meeting about his performance criteria. That on 03.05.2019, the defendant No.1 has sent the performance chart to the plaintiff. That the plaintiff has himself left the job without giving any information and without following any regulation and was absent from his services.
REPLICATION: Sahil
Khurmi
5. Plaintiff has filed replication to the written statement of Digitally signed by Sahil Khurmi Date: 2024.06.06 17:34:09 +0530 CS SCJ No.2495/2019 Page No.3 of 20 defendant thereby reiterating the averments made in the plaint and denying the averments made in the written statement.
6. Thereafter the pleadings were complete and the following issues were framed vide Order dated 19.01.2022:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of Rs. 62,000/-
towards two months remuneration along with pendentelite and future interest @ 18% per annum from 30.05.2019 till its realization, as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction, thereby directing the defendant to supply the experience certificate and relieving letter to plaintiff? OPP
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to compensation towards mental agony and harassment? OPP
4. Whether no cause of action has accrued in favour of plaintiff? OPD
5. Relief.
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE:-
7. Plaintiff in order to prove his case has got examined himself as PW-1. PW-1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied on the following documents:-
Mark A(colly) Copy of certificate dated 03.06.2013 issued Sahil by KNT University along with copy of my Khurmi Aadhar Card and Rent Agreement.Digitally signed by Sahil Khurmi Date: 2024.06.06 17:34:26 +0530 CS SCJ No.2495/2019 Page No.4 of 20
Ex.PW1/B Copy of email dated 31.01.2019.
Ex.PW1/C and Copy of email and offer letter both dated Ex.PW1/D 02.02.2019. Ex.PW1/E Copy of email dated 03.05.2019 Ex.PW1/F Copy of email dated 07.05.2019 Ex.PW1/G Copy of email dated 07.05.2019.
Ex.PW1/H(colly) Copy of email dated 24.05.2019 Mark D Relevant documents of the EPFO Ex.PW1/I(colly) Copy of email dated 24.05.2019 Ex.PW1/J(colly) Copies of emails dated 07.06.2019 and dated 15.06.2019.
Ex.PW1/K Copy of email dated 16.06.2019.
Mark B Copy of legal notice dated 17.05.2019 Ex.PW1/L(colly) Postal receipt and tracking reports.
Mark C Copy of reply dated 04.06.2019. Ex.PW1/N Certificate u/S 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.PW1/O Present suit. 7.1 PW-1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for
defendant and thereafter plaintiff evidence was closed vide order dated 25.08.2023 on separate statement of plaintiff and the matter was fixed for defence evidence.
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE: Sahil
Khurmi
8. In defence evidence, Ms. Jyoti Rani Jha/AR of the Digitally signed
by Sahil Khurmi
Date:
CS SCJ No.2495/2019 Page No.5 of 20 2024.06.06
17:34:38 +0530
defendant has been examined as DW-1. DW-1 relied upon Ex. PW-1/D2, Ex. PW1/D3, Ex. PW1/D4, Ex. PW1/D5, Ex. PW1/D1 and Mark C. DW-1 further relied on the following documents:-
EX. DW-1/1 Board resolution dated 18.11.2023 EX. DW-1/2 Certificate / affidavit under Section 63 read with Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. Mark-X Board resolution dated 19.09.2019. EX.DW-1/4 (Colly) Remuneration Slip for months of March, 2019 to May, 2019.
EX.DW-1/5 (Colly) E-mail dated 02.02.2019 with letter of offer dated 02.02.2019 EX. DW-1/6 (Colly) E-mail dated 08.02.2019 & 05.02.2019 sent by the plaintiff.
EX.DW-1/7(Colly) Two E-mails dated 07.05.2019 & 24.05.2019, exchanged between the plaintiff and defendant.
8.1 DW-1 was duly cross examined on behalf of plaintiff. 8.2 Thereafter, defence evidence was closed on separate statement of AR of the defendant.
9. I have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record of the case meticulously.
FINDINGS ON ISSUES:-
Sahil ISSUE NO.1 :- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of Rs. 62,000/- towards two months remuneration along with Khurmi pendentelite and future interest @ 18% per annum from Digitally signed by Sahil Khurmi Date:
2024.06.06 17:34:51 +0530 CS SCJ No.2495/2019 Page No.6 of 20 30.05.2019 till its realization, as prayed for? OPP
10. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that the said issue has been wrongly framed and there is a typographical error in the said issue and it appears that the said issue has been wrongly copied from the connected matter in CS No.2494/19 titled as Shrikant vs M/s Spectar Digi Services Pvt Ltd, listed on same date.
10.1 After perusing the prayer clause of the plaint of the plaintiff, the present issue is amended under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC and reframed as:
Issue No.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of Rs.75,000/- towards three months remuneration along with pendentelite and future interest @ 18% per annum from 30.05.2019 till actual realization? OPP.
11. Onus to prove this issue is on the plaintiff. It is the case of plaintiff that he was forced to resign from the company of defendant No.1 and the plaintiff is claiming remuneration of three months on the ground that the contract of service was for six months and the plaintiff was forced to resign from the job prior to that. Per contra, the case of the defendant is that the defendant company never gave any written letter/communication to the plaintiff regarding termination of his services, rather the plaintiff stopped coming to the office.
Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the following judgments: Sahil Khurmi
1. Deepali Gundu Surwase vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak & Digitally signed by Sahil Khurmi Date: 2024.06.06 17:35:04 +0530 CS SCJ No.2495/2019 Page No.7 of 20 Ors. (Civil Appeal no. 6767 of 2013)
2. Vikas Kumar vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation W.P.(C) 8692 of 2018
3. Jagbir Singh vs Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board (2009) 15 SCC 327
4. The Management Guru Gobind Indrapastha University vs Lokesh Kumar & anr. W.P.(C) 4822 of 2014
5. Triloki v Ashok Hotel WP(C)5227/2012 Ld. Counsel for the defendant has relied upon the following judgments:
1. Binny Ltd. & Anr. Vs Sadasivan & ors. (2005) 6 SCC 657
2. L.M.Khosla vs Thai Airways International Public Company Ltd. (2012) SCC Online Del 4019
3. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs Amritsar Gas Service & ors.
4. Naresh Kumar vs. Sh. Hiroshi Maniva & Ors. 2015 SCC Online Del 13315
12. It is profitable to refer to Clause 10 of offer letter dated 02.02.2019 Ex. PW1/D reads as:
10) Either of the party can terminate the engagement with a written notice of 1 month.
Sahil Khurmi
13. The offer letter dated 02.02.2019 is duly admitted by both Digitally signed by Sahil Khurmi Date: 2024.06.06 17:35:16 +0530 CS SCJ No.2495/2019 Page No.8 of 20 the parties and Clause 10 of the said letter is also undisputed by both parties and relied up by both parties. 13.1 As per Ex.PW1/6 i.e. email dated 03.05.2019 from HR of defendant No.1 to the plaintiff, the details of performance parameters of the plaintiff along with comparison with his performing peer was given to the plaintiff. 13.2 As per Ex.PW1/5 i.e. email dated 07.05.2019 by the plaintiff to the HR of defendant No.1, the plaintiff raised several queries regarding his comparison with the performing peer. 13.3 As per Ex.PW1/G, i.e. email dated 07.05.2019 by HR of defendant No.1 to the plaintiff, it was stated that the defendant No.1 company is downsizing current work force based on the performance criteria across the board.
13.4 As per Ex.PW1/J i.e. email dated 07.06.2019 from defendant No.1 to the plaintiff, it was stated that the plaintiff has abruptly left the office on 31.05.2019 after returning his laptop and I-card of the company showing his unwillingness to continue and it is further stated that there is requirement to serve one month notice period as per the engagement/contract prior to termination of the same by either parties and therefore, plaintiff was told that he is liable to pay notice period fees to the defendant No.1 company.
13.5 That one email dated 15.06.2019 the plaintiff was informed by defendant No.1 that his services with defendant No.1 have been terminated w.e.f. 31.05.2019 as he has deserted the job.
13.6 That as per Ex.PW1/K letter dated 16.06.2019 by the Sahil plaintiff to defendant No.1, it was stated by the plaintiff that he Khurmi received telephonic call from the HR namely Dheeraj of Digitally signed by Sahil Khurmi Date:
CS SCJ No.2495/2019 Page No.9 of 20 2024.06.06 17:35:24 +0530 defendant No.1 thereby he was forced to resign from the job on the basis of his performance report on 01.05.2019 and he intimated him that the last working day would be 31.05.2019 and thereafter the plaintiff had submitted the belongings of the company on 31.05.2019 serving May as his notice period of a month.
14. Thus, perusal of Ex.PW1/K transpires that plaintiff had admitted that he left the job of defendant No.1 on 31.05.2019 after serving the notice period of one month on May 2019. Moreover, it is an admitted position that there is no written notice issued by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff regarding termination of his job, which was sine qua non/quintessential as per clause No.10 of the Contract between the parties which mandated a written notice of 30 days of termination of the job.
15. The only bone of contention between the parties is that the plaintiff has stated that he was forced to resign by HR of defendant No.1 whereas defendant No.1 has stated that plaintiff has resigned himself.
16. In the present case, since no written notice of the termination of job giving 30 days notice was being issued by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff, therefore, there is no violation of clause 10 of the contract of service.
17. At this juncture, it is profitable to refer to judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in M/S G4S Security Services (I) Pvt Ltd vs Dhiraj Negi RFA No. 122/2015 decided on 23 August Sahil 2018, wherein reliance was placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Khurmi Supreme Court in S.C.Shetty vs Bharat Nidhi Limited AIR 1958 Digitally signed SC 12. The following was observed by Hon'ble High Court of by Sahil Khurmi Date: 2024.06.06 17:35:33 +0530 CS SCJ No.2495/2019 Page No.10 of 20 Delhi:
4. Therefore, once the contract is a private employment, and the same is terminable by two month's notice, the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.C.Shetty vs Bharat Nidhi Limited AIR 1958 SC 12 applies which provides that a contract of private employment ceases on the period of notice being served out or pay being given in lieu of the notice period.
I have had an occasion to refer to the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.C. Shetty(supra) in various cases, and the last of such case is the judgment in the case of Mrs. Malini Rajendran Vs. Federation of Hotel &Restaurant Association of India & Others, 2017 (242) DLT 167.The relevant paragraph of the judgment in the case of Mrs. Malini Rajendran(supra) is paragraph 5, and the same reads as under:-
5.(i) Though the appellant/plaintiff pleads before this Court that the appellant/plaintiff had claimed the relief of restitution of services as also damages by alleging violation of Clause 11 of the appointment letter dated 3.10.2006, however, I have not found any cause of action specifically pleaded in the plaint by making reference to Clause 11 of the appointment letter dated 3.10.2006, that the appellant/plaintiff has not been given three months notice or that the appellant/plaintiff has not being given Sahil three months salary in lieu of notice Khurmi terminating services. Digitally signed by Sahil Khurmi
(ii) For the sake of arguments and assuming Date: 2024.06.06 17:35:45 +0530 CS SCJ No.2495/2019 Page No.11 of 20 that the appellant/plaintiff had pleaded a cause of action of illegal termination of services by not being given three months notice or three months salary in lieu thereof, however, the law is well settled in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Shetty Vs. Bharat Nidhi Ltd., AIR 1958 SC 12 and in which judgment the Supreme Court has held that even if there is illegal termination of contractual services of an employee, the maximum damages which an employee as a grievance of illegal termination of services is entitled to is the salary for notice period. The relevant para of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Shetty(supra) is para 12 and which para reads as under:-
"12. The position as it obtains in the ordinary law of master and servant is quite clear. The master who wrongfully dismisses his servant is bound to pay him such damages as will compensate him for the wrong that he has sustained.
"They are to be assessed by reference to the amount earned in the service wrongfully terminated and the time likely to elapse before the servant obtains another post for which he fitted. If the contract expressly provides that it is terminable upon, e.g., a month's notice, the damages will ordinarily be a month's wages....No compensation can be claimed in respect of the injury done to the servant's feelings by the circumstances of his dismissal, nor in respect of extra Digitally difficulty of finding work resulting from signed by Sahil those circumstances. A servant who has Sahil Khurmi Khurmi Date:
been wrongfully dismissed must use 2024.06.06 17:36:10 +0530 CS SCJ No.2495/2019 Page No.12 of 20 diligence to seek another employment, and the fact that he has been offered a suitable post may be taken into account in assessing the damages."
18. The scope of damages in a contract of employment which provides termination of service by means of a notice of a certain period was also considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in L.M.Khosla vs Thai Airways International Public Company Ltd. And Anr. 2012 SCC Online Del 4019; wherein it was held that a contract of private employment is not similar to the public employment. The Hon'ble Court held that a contract of employment which provides for termination of services by one month's notice, the employee will only be entitled to one month's pay in terms of employment contract. The court held that in such cases, an employee is not entitled to any relief of continuation in service or pay with consequential benefits for alleged remaining period of service till the date of his superannuation. In this matter, the High Court also interpreted the ratio of the decision in the matter of S.S.Shetty's case (supra) and held as under;
8. In view of the aforesaid judgments, the following conclusions in law emerge:-
(i) A contract of private employment is not similar to the public employment and in such private employment there is no scope of applicability of the principles of administrative law/public law.
(ii) A contract of employment which Sahil provides termination of services by one month's notice, then, at best the employee Khurmi will only be entitled to one month's pay in Digitally signed by Sahil Khurmi terms of the employment contract. An Date: 2024.06.06 employee is not entitled to any relief of 17:36:21 +0530 CS SCJ No.2495/2019 Page No.13 of 20 continuation in services or pay with consequential benefits for alleged remaining period of services till the date of his superannuation.
(emphasis supplied)
19. Adverting back to the facts of the present case, it is an admitted case that the contract of employment provided that the services of the plaintiff could have been terminated by giving one month notice.
20. The scope of applicability of principles of administrative law and public law may differ in cases of a contract of private employment and public employment. However, the mode of determining the damages remains same under both circumstances. The upshot of the above discussion is that in case the contract is determinable by giving notice for a prescribed period, the employee would, at best, be entitled to receive the pay & allowances for the prescribed notice period and nothing beyond that provided it is established that he has been wrongfully terminated from service.
21. In Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas Service & Ors (1991) 1 SCC 533, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. terminated a distributorship agreement on account of complaints that Amritsar Gas Service was selling unauthorized gas connections. The agreement contained two clauses which governed termination - one which provided for termination on the happening of certain specified events and another which entitled either party to terminate the agreement by giving 30 Sahil Khurmi days' notice to the other party, without assigning any reason for Digitally signed such termination. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. terminated the by Sahil Khurmi Date: 2024.06.06 17:36:32 +0530 CS SCJ No.2495/2019 Page No.14 of 20 agreement under the former clause. An arbitral tribunal found the termination to be a breach of contract and held that Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. was liable to restore the distributorship and also pay compensation. The Supreme Court was of the view that the agreement was revocable and therefore determinable in nature under the Act as per Section 14 of Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court also held that once the arbitral tribunal found that the termination for alleged breach was wrongful, the only remedy which could be granted was compensation for the 30-day notice period, since the agreement was revocable without assigning any reason.
22. In Naresh Kumar vs. Sh. Hiroshi Maniva & Ors. 2015 SCC Online Del 13315, it was held by Delhi High Court that:
8. In view of the aforesaid judgments, the following conclusions in law emerge:-
(i) A contract of private employment is not similar to the public employment and in such private employment there is no scope of applicability of the principles of administrative law/public law.
(ii) A contract of employment which provides termination of services by one month's notice, then, at best the employee will only be entitled to one month's pay in terms of the employment contract. An employee is not entitled to any relief of continuation in services or pay with consequential benefits for alleged remaining period of services till the date of his superannuation. Sahil
(iii) As per the provision of Section Khurmi 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a contract which is determinable in nature Digitally signed by Sahil Khurmi cannot be specifically enforced. Since the Date: 2024.06.06 17:36:45 +0530 CS SCJ No.2495/2019 Page No.15 of 20 service contract in the present case is determinable by one month's notice there does not arise the question of giving of any reliefs which tantamount to enforcement of a determinable contract. As per Section 14(1)(b), a contract of personal service cannot be enforced when the employer is not the Government or "State" as per Article 12of the Constitution of India.
Plaintiff has in fact received one month's pay and therefore his claim will stand satisfied in law and he is not entitled to any reliefs as prayed for in prayer clauses in the suit."
4. It is therefore clear that the plaintiff cannot claim illegality of termination of his employment either for continuing the employment or for claiming any monetary amount as if he had continued in employment with the defendant no.7.
23. In the present case firstly, no termination notice was ever issued by the defendant to the plaintiff and secondly, even otherwise also the plaintiff has been already paid salary for one month till his last day in service i.e., 31.05.2019.
24. It is an admitted case that the contract of employment provided that the services of the plaintiff could have been terminated by giving one month notice. Thus, the contract of service was terminable and as per Section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a contract which is determinable in nature cannot be specifically enforced. As held in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd(supra), Naresh Kumar (supra), L.M.Khosla Sahil (supra), S.S.Shetty (supra) and M/S G4S Security Khurmi Services(supra), a contract of employment which provides Digitally signed termination of services by one month's notice, then, at best the by Sahil Khurmi Date: 2024.06.06 CS SCJ No.2495/2019 Page No.16 of 20 17:36:56 +0530 employee will only be entitled to one month's pay in terms of the employment contract, which stands already paid, in the present case. An employee is not entitled to any relief of continuation in services or pay with consequential benefits for alleged remaining period of services till the date of his superannuation.
25. The scope of applicability of principles of administrative law and public law may differ in cases of a contract of private employment and public employment. However, the mode of determining the damages remains same under both circumstances. The upshot of the above discussion is that in case the contract is determinable by giving notice for a prescribed period, the employee would, at best, be entitled to receive the pay & allowances for the prescribed notice period and nothing beyond that provided it is established that he has been wrongfully terminated from service.
26. For the reasons aforementioned, this Court has come to inescapable conclusion that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to three month's salary totaling to of Rs. 75,000/- for the remaining tenure as initially agreed by parties. Upon due appreciation of the evidence, it is evidently clear that plaintiff has been unable to prove his case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, the present issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. Issue No.2:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendant to supply the copies of experience certificate and relieving letter to the plaintiff? Sahil OPP Khurmi Digitally signed by Sahil Khurmi Date:
27. The onus to prove this issue is on the plaintiff. The 2024.06.06 17:37:10 +0530 CS SCJ No.2495/2019 Page No.17 of 20 plaintiff has prayed that directions may be given to the defendant No.1 to supply the experience certificate and relieving letter to the plaintiff so that his future prospects of job are not affected.
28. On the contrary, it is the case of defendant that the plaintiff has himself deserted the job without giving any written notice, therefore, he is not entitled to experience certificate and relieving letter.
29. In the considered view of this Court, experience certificate and relieving letter are very important documents for a person seeking job and not having either of them seriously affects the future prospects of the candidate for jobs. Experience certificate and relieving letter is important because they serve as official documentation of an employee's past work experience. A relieving letter is a crucial document issued to an employee when leaving a corporation. It's a formal communication between the organizations and the employee for accepting the resignation. It's an important document that each organization must see before joining the concerned person within the current organization. It is a judicially noticeable fact that nowadays, organizations don't proceed with the candidate profile despite being selected through the interview process if the candidate doesn't acquire a relieving letter. The relieving letter from the previous employer shows that the employee has cleared all the dues and don't have any pending work there, and it also helps organizations to make sure that the worker who goes to resign is relieved from their duties and isn't holding any company's data or internal property.
30. Adverting back to the facts of the present case, it is not disputed that the plaintiff has given his services to the defendant Sahil Khurmi No.1 for a certain period of time. Therefore, it is right of the Digitally signed by Sahil Khurmi CS SCJ No.2495/2019 Page No.18 of 20 Date: 2024.06.06 17:37:21 +0530 plaintiff to get experience certificate and relieving letter from the defendant.
31. Accordingly, the defendant No.1 is directed to supply the experience certificate and relieving letter to the plaintiff for the services provided by him to defendant No.1 from the date of joining till the date of relieving. Hence, the present issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No.3:-Whether plaintiff is entitled to compensation towards mental agony and harassment? OPP
32. The onus to prove this issue is on the plaintiff. However, plaintiff has not placed on record any medical document or any other documentary evidence to prove that he suffered mental agony and harassment and moreover since the main issue No.1 has already been decided against the plaintiff, therefore, the present issue is also decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Issue No.4:-Whether no cause of action has accrued in favour of plaintiff? OPD
33. The onus to prove this issue is on the defendant. It has already been decided vide issue No.1 that no cause of action has accrued in favour of the plaintiff, entitling him to salary of three months as claimed by him. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff Sahil Khurmi Issue no. 5:- RELIEF Digitally signed
34. In view of foregoing discussion, the present suit is partly by Sahil Khurmi Date: decreed in the following terms:- 2024.06.06 17:37:31 +0530 CS SCJ No.2495/2019 Page No.19 of 20 Defendant i.e. M/s Spectar Digi Services Pvt Ltd is directed to supply the experience certificate and relieving letter to the plaintiff for the services provided by him to defendant i.e. M/s Spectar Digi Services Pvt Ltd from the date of joining till the date of relieving.
35. No order as to costs.
36. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
37. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Digitally signed court today on 06.06.2024 Sahil by Sahil Khurmi Date:
Khurmi 2024.06.06 17:37:39 +0530 (SAHIL KHURMI) Civil Judge-1, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ No.2495/2019 Page No.20 of 20