Bangalore District Court
Rajnarayanan M vs Flint Group India Private Ltd on 25 June, 2019
IN THE COURT OF XV ADDITONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS: JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH.NO.3)
Dated this 25 th day of June 2019.
O.S. No. 1138/2016
Present :- Sri. Jaishankar. B.Sc.,LL.M.
XV Additional City Civil &
Session Judge, Bengaluru.
Plaintiff :- Rajnarayanan M.
S/o Mr. Maharajan R.,
Aged about 49 years,
R/at 47/4, Rajiv Nagar,
Bagalur Road,
Hosur-635109,
Tamil Nadu.
(Rep.by P.N Advocate)
V/s
Defendant :- Flint Group India Private Ltd.
CIN No.U02422GJ1989PTC079311
having its registered offices at:
Plot No.2, Shiv Industrial
Infrastructure Park,
Lamdapura-391775,
Savil Taluk, Vaddodara District,
Gujarat, having its place of
business at:47-D,Bommasandra
Industrial Area,
Bengaluru-560099.
(Rep.by S.A.K Advocate)
O.S.No.1138/2016
Date of Institution of the 06.02.2016
suit
Nature of the Suit (suit
for pronote, Suit for Suit for Recovery of Money
declaration and
possession, Suit for
injunction, etc.):
Date of the 14.06.2017
commencement of
recording of the Evidence:
Date on which the
Judgment was 25.06.2019
pronounced:
Total duration: Year/s Month/s Day/s
03 04 19
JU D GM E N T
The plaintiff has filed this suit praying to direct the
defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 5,56,500/- as the unpaid
bonus/incentive, a sum of Rs. 3,00,510/- as interest on
the unpaid bonus/incentive and a sum of Rs. 6,77,720/-
as the unpaid amount towards the unused leave
encashment earned and Rs.3,65,969/- as interest on the
said sum. He has also prayed for a sum of Rs. 1,87,400/-
towards unpaid gratuity due and a sum of Rs. 1,01,196/-
towards the interest of the said amount. In all he has
prayed to defendant to a sum of Rs. 21,89,295/- with
interest at the rate of 18% p.a, from the date of suit till
realization and also for cross and such other reliefs which
the costs may deem fit to grant.
O.S.No.1138/2016
2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-
He has worked in defendant Company for 22 years.
He joined the Company on 5.10.1990 as a R&D
Trainee. Thereafter through his dedication,
determination and hard work, he became the General
Manager Technical within a span of 10 years. The
defendant Company had been constantly and regularly
reviewing and appraising his role in the growth and
development of the Company. He was a consistent
performer and had on all occasions, stepped up and
shouldered any and all responsibilities and helped the
defendant Company in overcoming many tough
situations. Recognising his problems and contributions
the Company has issued letters of appreciation/ salary
increments almost every year since from the date of
appointment. In addition to that he has also provided
various bonus and incentives from time to time.
However, owing to certain personal reasons he decided
to quit the employment of the defendant Company
during the end of 2012 and he handed over his
resignation on 02.11.2012. After serving the required
notice period and after handing over all his
responsibilities to the other relevant employees, he left
the Company on 06.02.2013. At the time of his exit
from the defendant Company he was entitled to
payment for work done from 01.02.2013 to 06.02.2013,
bonus/ incentive earned for the year 2012 leave
encashment for the period of 220 days and gratuity for
O.S.No.1138/2016
22 years of his employments with the defendants
Company. To shock and utter dismay his payments
were not made immediately. After exchange of various
emails and discussions he received payments only for
the work done from 01.02.2013 to 06.02.2013 on
24.03.2013. Thereafter on 13.05.2013 he received part
of his gratuity from the defendant Company. Though,
several requests were made, the same was not paid. On
30.05.2013, he sent a E-mail to the Senior
Management and President, Asia Pacific of the
Company. They did not provide satisfactory responses.
On 31.05.2013, Mr Brent Stephen of the defendant
Company sent an email denying his legitimate claims.
He has rightfully earned the complete bonus/incentives
of Rs. 5,56,500/- as per the letter dated 25.05.2013
issued by the defendant Company. He has met all
parameters and he was consistently performing well
and as such he is entitled for the same. He has also
met his sales and budgetary targets. By the time he left
the Company, he had met every target and therefore he
was contractually entitled for entire incentives and the
defendant Company he is not entitled for the withhold
the same. He is also for entitled for interest on the said
amount at the rate of 18% p.a which comes to
3,00,510/-.
3. Further, case of the plaintiff is that he has
worked hard for the defendant Company and has taken
minimal number of leaves. He has accumulated 220
days of unused and uncashed leaves over the years.
O.S.No.1138/2016
The defendant Company had a policy encouraging leave
encashment and he has received payments towards
unused leaves about 120 days in the past during the
year 2006. Many of his colleagues have received to
leave encashment. But, the defendant Company is
denying him payment on the said unused and
uncashed leave. He has never agreed for modification of
the leave policy and even if such modification had been
made if it will not be applicable to him. As such, he is
entitle for the unused leave which amounts to
6,77,720/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a, which
comes to 3,65,969/-. Further, he has worked in the
factory premises of the defendant Company for about
22 years and the defendant had agreed to better terms
of gratuity than the mandatory minimum prescribed
under the Payments of Wages Act, 1972. The latest
terms are revised and agreed in the letter dated
25.05.2012. He is entitled for gratuity at the rate of Rs.
73,700/- which is the equivalent of the last month
drawn salary. The defendant has only paid the gratuity
amount for 20 years instead of 22 years they have paid
Rs. 18,74,000/- for 20 years of service. If it is
calculated for 22 years, it would come to
Rs.20,61,400/-. As such, they are liable to pay the
remaining gratuity amount of Rs. 1,87,400/- and
interest at the rate of 18% p.a, which would amount to
Rs. 1,01,196/-. As such, in all the defendant Company
are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 21,89,295/-.
4. The defendant Company has appeared through
O.S.No.1138/2016
its Counsel and has filed its written statement and has
contended as follows:-
That the suit filed by the plaintiff is false,
frivolously, vexatious and not maintainable in law or on
facts. The suit is filed with the sole purpose of
harassing them and to coerce them with a malafide
intention making of making unlawful monitory gain.
The averments made in the plaint are absolutely false.
The defendant Company develops, manufacture and
markets an extensive portfolio of printing ink and press
room chemicals and blanket for the news paper
industry. The plaintiff was employed for defendant
Company vide appointment letter dated 05.10.1990 on
18.10.1990 as an R&D trainee. As the time progressed,
the plaintiff was in the Technical Department and
thereafter on 02.11.2012 he has voluntarily handed
over his resignation vide e-mail stating family problems
and health issues. They had not asked him to leave the
Company. But, he voluntarily chose to resign from his
position. The last working day of plaintiff was
06.02.2013. There were absolutely no issues with
respect to the departure from the Company.
Thereafter, they were processed the payments were to
be made to the plaintiff. As the procedure for resigned
employees varies and since they are not a part of the
regular payroll they had to processing the outstanding
payment and after processed they made the payments
of the work done by him between 01.02.2012 to
06.02.2012 which amounted to Rs.71,903/- and it was
O.S.No.1138/2016
paid by Cheque No.421919 dated 03.04.2013, apart
from his salary for the said period which was paid in
March 2013, the only payment due to the plaintiff was
the gratuity amount and an amount of Rs.18,74,000/-
was paid Cheque No.608229 dated 2.05.2013 and it
was deposited to the account of the plaintiff. There was
no demure or protection made by the plaintiff with
respect to the quantum of the gratuity amount. The
Company has only one gratuity policy for every member
who has rendered not less than 5 years of service.
They pay one month salary for each year of service
subject to a maximum of 20 months salary. Till date no
employee or member as received the amount exceeding
20 months salary calculated as on date of
resignation/retirement. After paying the said amount,
there is no amount due to the plaintiff. The plaintiff
was aware of the gratuity policy and he did not protest
payment made to him. Even there is no claim for
gratuity is his email dated 30.05.2013 and from the
date of payment of gratuity amount till the date of filling
of the suit. There have been absolutely no claim by the
plaintiff with respect to the alleged outstanding gratuity
amount. Only to harass them he is claiming the same.
The outstanding amount due to the plaintiff were paid
and there is no amount due to the plaintiff. In his e-
mail dated 31.05.2013, the plaintiff has made
various avarments against the defendant Company,
including the claim towards leave encashment and
bonus/incentive for the year 2012. The President Asia
Pacific region has sent e-mail to the plaintiff and has
O.S.No.1138/2016
stated as per the leave encashment policy the person
who resign and leave the Company is not entitled for
the leave encashment policy as per Human Resources
Manual which was implemented with fact from
01.11.2012. Plaintiff was a part of the leadership
term and he was asked to give inputs and did not
repond. The said Manual show that all employees
who are working an entitled to receive incentive. The
employee who resign from his position during the year
is not entitled for incentive/ bonus. As such, the
plaintiff is not entitled for any claim made in the suit.
The averments and claim made by the plaintiff are
absolutely false. The plaintiff has failed to establish or
place any materials on record in order show that he is
entitled for the reliefs sought in the suit. He is
approached the Court with a bonafide intention. The
plaintiff has suppressed materials fact and documents
and there is no cause of action to file this suit. On all
these grounds, the defendant Company has prayed for
dismissal from the suit.
5. Basing on the above pleadings,the following
issues have been framed in this case:-
I SSU E S
1.Whether plaintiff proves that defendant is in due of Rs. 5,56,500/- towards unpaid bonus and incentives?
O.S.No.1138/2016
2. Whether plaintiff further proves that he is entitle for the interest at the rate of Rs. 18% per annum on the unpaid bonus amount of Rs. 3,00,510/- from 07.02.2013 till the date of filing the suit?
3. Whether plaintiff further proves that he is entitle to recover sum of Rs.
3,65,969/- towards interest on the unpaid amount?
4. Whether plaintiff further proves that defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,87,400/- to the plaintiff towards unpaid gratuity?
5. Whether plaintiff further proves that defendant is liable to pay Rs.
1,01,196/- to the plaintiff towards interest on the unpaid gratuity amount?
6. Whether plaintiff further proves that he is entitle to recover sum of Rs.14,21,620/- from the defendant with interest at the rate of 18% per annum?
7. What order?
Additional Issue
1. Whether plaintiff is entitle for the leave encashment salary as claimed in the plaint?
6. In order to prove his case plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 42 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.42. On behalf of the O.S.No.1138/2016 defendant Company, the Assistant Manager has examined himself of D.W.1 and he has got marked 8 documents as Ex.D.1 to D.8. The defendant Company has also got marked 3 documents during the cross examination of P.W.1 as Ex.D.1 to D.3. I have heard the arguments of the both sides and perused the entire materials on record. Now the points that arise for my consideration.
7. Having regard to the arguments heard and the materials on record, I answer the above points as hereunder:-
Issue No. 1 :- In the negative
Issue No. 2 :- In the negative
Issue No. 3 :- In the negative
Issue No. 4 :- In the negative
Issue No. 5 :- In the negative
Issue No. 6 :- In the negative
Addl. Issue No. 1 :- In the negative
Issue No.7 :- As per final order
R E A S ON S
8. Issue No.1 & 2 :- Since these two issues are
interconnected they are taken up together to avoid repetition. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was appointed to the post of R&D Trainee in the defendant Company as per the letter of appointment dated 05.10.1990. Thereafter, through his dedication and hard O.S.No.1138/2016 work he became the General Manager Technical within a span of 10 years. He was a consistent performer on all occasions and shouldered all the responsibilities. Considering his performance, they have issued letters of appreciation and also for increments every year. They have also provided him various bonus/ incentive from time to time. Due his personal reason, he decided to quit the employment of the defendant Company and rendered his resignation on 02.11.2012. After notice period he handed over the charge and left the employment of the defendant Company on 06.02.2013. At the time of his exit from the defendant Company, he was entitled for a sum of Rs. 5,56,500/- towards unpaid bonus/incentives and interest at the rate of 18% from 06.02.2013, which amounts to 3,00,510/-. The plaintiff who is examined as P.W.1 has reiterated the above facts in his affidavit filed in lieu of his examination in chief. He has got marked his appointment letter, Appointment Confirmation Letter, Promotion letter, Salary Increment Letters, Revised Salary and other benefits letter as Ex.P.1 to P.21. He has also got marked the letters of appreciation and other letters of defendant Company as Ex.P22 to P.25. Ex.P.26 the letter dated 11.08.2001 regarding the incentive. Ex.P.27 to 36 are the letters of the defendant Company regarding Annual performance bonus and also the incentive. Ex.P.37 is the E-mail sent by the plaintiff to the defendant Company claiming leave encashment and bonus/incentive for the year 2012. Ex.P.38 is the reply given by the defendant Company through email and Ex.P.39 is the performance of management Log of the O.S.No.1138/2016 the year 2012. Ex.P.40 is the email sent to the plaintiff regarding payment of his gratuity. Ex.P.41 is the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act 1872 and Ex.P.42 is the Extract of Ministry of Government of India regarding the defendant Company. As such, it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant Company was regularly paying him bonus/incentive. He has met all the performance para meter before his resignation and hence he is entitled for the bonus/incentive for the year 2012 along with the interest. The defendant Company has denied the same. In its written statement it has contended in para 13 that the plaintiff's last working day was 6th February, 2012. As per the policy of the Company only the person employed with the defendant Company will be entitled to receive incentive. In the management incentive scheme 2012, it is clearly mentioned that any senior Manager who resign from his position during the year will forego the incentive payments. The Assistant manager of the defendant Company has examined himself as D.W.1 and he has given evidence on the strength of the resolution passed by the Board which is marked as Ex.D.4. He has reiterated the same in his affidavit filed in lieu of his examination in chief. The defendant Company has got marked the resignation letter of the plaintiff as Ex.D.1 and the email regarding the Leadership Team of the Company as Ex.D.2 and also the email sent regarding the inputs to the Employee Manual as Ex.D.3 during cross examination of P.W.1. Further, D.W.1 has got marked the O.S.No.1138/2016 Rules for Management bonus scheme 2012, as Ex.D.7.
9. During the course of the arguments, the Counsel for the defendant argued that the plaintiff has worked till February 2012 and bonus has to be given to every employee. Bonus is contingent and it is dependent on service of the employee. The defendant Company have no right to say that he is not entitled to bonus. Ex.D.7 has been marked through D.W.1. The defendant Company is not able to say whether the said scheme is implemented. D.W.1 has stated that it has come into force in the year 2012. The date of enforcement is not mentioned in the said document. Though they say that it has been sent through email to employees, there is no evidence to believe the same. It is a unilataral document. There is nothing regarding the bonus/incentive in the Appointment letter. As such, since the plaintiff has worked during the said year to the satisfaction of the Company, he as to be given bonus/incentive as prayed in the plaint. On the other hand, the Counsel for the defendant Company argued that the plaintiff has not produced any evidence to show that he has met his sales target. He was a part of Senior Management to which the scheme applies. He himself has produced the Management incentive scheme of 2002, in which it is stated at para 6 and 7 that the bonus/ incentive is discretion of the employer and it will not be provided to any person who resigns P.W.1 has also admitted that the O.S.No.1138/2016 incentive scheme annexed to Ex.P.27 was in force. As on the date on which he submitted the resignation nww policy has been introduced. In para 12 and 16 of Ex.D.7, it is clearly mentioned that any person leaving the Company for any reason before the relevant bonus is made, will not be entitled to receive any bonus. As such, the plaintiff is not entitled for any bonus/ incentive.
10. I have perused the entire materials on record. In Ex.P.1 which is the appointment letter it is clearly mentioned in para 1 that the employment of the plaintiff will be governed by the rules and regulations of the Company. Even in Ex.P.2 it is mentioned that employment continue to remain as per the appointment letter marked as Ex.P.1. Though, several letters have been given regarding the Management and Incentive Scheme, Ex.P.27 is the letter which was issued along with the Management incentive scheme 2002. The said document is produced by the plaintiff. In Sl.No. 7 of the said document it is clearly mentioned that any person who resign from his position during the year will forego any incentive payments. Further, in Ex.P.35 which is the letter regarding bonus it is clearly mentioned that all bonus scheme are discretionary and subject to group decision to determine if any bonus is payable. During his cross examination at page No.23, P.W.1 has admitted that it is true that the defendant Company was used to issue letters to his employees, who are entitled for promotion and increments, similar to Ex.P.2 to P.24. He has further stated that after 2010, onwords he has O.S.No.1138/2016 received bonus every year except one year that is during course of global recession. This show that the decision to pay the bonus/ incentive is the direction of the Company. Further, at page No. 25 he has admitted that Ex.D.2 is the email sent by the Company on 28.08.2012. He has also admitted that he was asked by the Management to provide input with regard to the draft Employee Manual. He has also admitted the circulation of Human Resources Manual to the employees on 27.11.2012. He has tendered his resignation on 02.11.2011 as per Ex.D.1. Ex.D.7 is the Management Incentive Scheme, 2012. It can be seen that in the said document at Sl No. 16 it is clearly mentioned that any person leaving the Company for any reason, before the relevant bonus payment is made, will not be entitled to receive any bonus. As such, the Company has made it clear through the said bonus scheme that a person who leaves the Company will not be entitled for any bonus. Further, in his cross examination P.W.1 has admitted at page 26 that as on 06.02.2013, the defendant Company had not announced the bonus for the previous year. The Company used to announce bonus after the expiry of calendar month of March. This show that even before the announcement of bonus, he has been relieved from the duties. He has given resignation during the month of November 2011. Further, though Ex.D.7 is issued is March 2012 in the earlier Incentive Scheme, 2002 which is marked as Ex.P.27 also it is stated that the employee who resigns is not entitled for bonus/ incentive. As such, the plaintiff has no right to claim the bonus/incentive from the O.S.No.1138/2016 defendant Company and he is not entitled as for the same. Hence, I answer issue Nos. 1 and 2 in the negative.
11. Addl Issue No.1 and issue No.3:- Since these two issues are interconnected they are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition. As observed above, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff is the employee of the defendant Company and he resigned on 02.11.2012 and worked till 06.02.2013. As far as the leave encashment is concerned, the plaintiff has stated at para 15 of the plaint that he has worked hard for the defendant Company and has taken minimal number of leaves. He has accumulated 220 days unused and uncashded leaves over the years. The defendant Company was also encouraging leave encashment when the plaintiff was in the employment of the defendant Company. In the past also he has received payment towards unused encashment and he was paid 120 days encashment during the year 2006. Many of his colleagues have availed this unused leave encashment policy and have received handsome amounts in the past. Now the defendant Company is denying him, payments towards these unused and uncashed leave. He has not been notified of any changes in the policy regarding encashment of unused leaves. He has never agreed to any modification. The plaintiff who is examined as P.W.1 has reiterated the above facts in his affidavit. He has further stated that he is entitled to claim a sum of Rs.6,77,720/- calculated as per the last basic annual salary and he is also entitled for interest. The defendant O.S.No.1138/2016 Company has denied the same and has contended in its written statement at para 28 that the plaintiff was a part of the leadership and Human Resources Manual is shared with each member of the Leadership Team to give further inputs. The plaintiff did not chose to give any input. On November 23, 2012 they had circulated the Human Resource Manual to all the employees including plaintiff. As per the said manual he is not entitled for any leave encashment. The Assistant Manager of the defendant Company who is examined as D.W.1 has reiterated the same in his affidavit. He has further stated that as per the Human Resource Manual leave 2012, with effect from 01.11.2012, the defendant Company has no policy from encashment of accumulated leave and as such the plaintiff is not entitled for the same. D.W.1 has got marked the Human Resource Manual as Ex.D.6. The plaintiff who is examined as P.W.1 has admitted in his cross examination at page 25 that he was the part of Leadership Team which provided input with respect to the draft Employee Manual . He has also admitted per Ex.D.3. He has further admitted that the copies Human Resource Manual were circulated to employees on 27.11.2012.
12. Further, he has admitted at page 23 that his appointment was as per the rules and regulations of the defendant Company. He has also admitted that it is clearly mentioned in his appointment letter marked as Ex.P.1. In Ex.D.6 it is clearly mentioned at page No.22 that only privilege leave can be accumulated and that too O.S.No.1138/2016 to the maximum upto 180 leaves. It is further mentioned that all employees belonging to staff and management staff cannot accumulate leaves effective from 01.11.2012. It is also mentioned that all the PL give would be lapsed at the end of 1st quaoter of the proceeding year if the employee do not avail them. It is further, mentioned that CL cannot be accumulated and would be lapsed in case they are not availed within the same calendar year. As such, it is clearly mentioned in the Human Resource Manual that leaves cannot be accumulated. Hence, the plaintiff has no right to claim the encashment of the same. When he has agreed to the terms mentioned in Ex.P.1 appointment letter and when the service conditions are as per the terms made by the Company, as such he has no right to claim encashment leave of in view of Ex.D.6. The evidence on record clearly show that Ex.D.6 is circulated to all the employees and it has come into effect from 01.11.2012. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to the claim of leave encashment and also the interest on the same. Hence, these two issues are answered in the negative.
13. Issue Nos. 4 and 5:- As observed above the employment of the plaintiff in the defendant Company and his resignation is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute he worked till 07.12.2013. Furhter, it is also not in dispute that he has worked for 22 years in the defendant Company. As far as gratuity is concerned the plaintiff has stated in para 19 of the plaint that he has worked for 22 years and 4 months in the defendant O.S.No.1138/2016 Company. Hence, he is entitled for gratuity for 22 years. The defendant had agreed to better terms of gratuity than the mandatory minimum prescribed under the payments of gratuity Act, 1972. He has further stated that he is entitled to be paid gratuity at the rate of 93,700/- which is the equivalent of a month's salary last drawn for each years of service. During May 2013, the gratuity amount for 20 years amounting to 18, 74,000/- was paid to him instead of 22 months. As such, he is entitled for gratuity for the remaining 2 years, which comes to 1,87,400/- and also interest on the same at the rate of 18% p.a which amounts to 1,96,000/-. The plaintiff who is examined as P.W.1 has reiterated the same in his affidavit filed in lieu of his examination of chief. The defendant Company has the case of the plaintiff and they have contended that there is no gratuity amount due to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has received Rs. 18,74,000/- and he did not protest. Even no claim is made by him email dated 30.05.2013. As per the Rules of defendant Company he is entitled for gratuity for 20 years. D.W.1 has also reiterated the same in his affidavit. In para 6 he has stated that as per the policy of the Company, the gratuity shall be paid subject to the maximum of 20 months salary. During his cross examination P.W.1 has admitted that he has received the gratuity amount for the period of 20 years and he has not made any protest. He has further stated that he does not know the gratuity policy of the defendant Company. But, in Ex.D.5 which is the employees gratuity cum life Assurance Scheme it is mentioned in the O.S.No.1138/2016 Appendix 1 at Sl.No.1 that a member who has rendered the service of not less than 5 years, is entitled for the gratuity of one month of salary of the member as on the date of retirement for each year of service subject to a maximum of 20 months salary. The said document appears to be very old and it show that this scheme has been introduced long back. As per Section 4(2) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 every employee is entitled for gratuity of 15 days wages for every completed year of service. Further, as per Section 4(5) the employee is entitled to receive better terms of gratuity under any agreement of contract with the employer. As such, under this provision every employee is entitled for 15 days of salary for each year of service. If the employee agrees for better terms, then the same has to be taken in to consideration. In this case, the defendant Company has paid one month salary for each year of service which is almost double and more than the amount mentioned in 4(2) of gratuity Act. But, it has restricted it for 20 years. It is definitely better term than that is prescribed in Section 4(2). In the decision relied on by the Counsel for the defendant reported in 2006(8) Supreme Court Cases 514 in the case of Beed District Central Coop Bank Ltd V/s State of Maharashtra and others the Hon'ble Supremen Court held that " either contract has to be given effect to or the statute. The provisions of the Act envisage for one scheme. It could not be segregated. Section 4(5) of the 1972 Act does not contemplate that the workman would be at liberty to opt for better terms of the contract, while keeping the option open in respect O.S.No.1138/2016 of a part of the statute. While reserving his right to opt for the beneficent provisions of the statute to the agreement, he has to opt for either of them and not the best of the terms of the statute as well as those of the contract. He cannot have both. Therefore, the workman cannot opt for both the terms. Such a construction would defeat the purpose for which Section 4(5) has been enacted". In this case, the plaintiff has been appointed as per Ex.P.1 appointment letter. In the said letter he has agreed that his appointment would be as per the terms of the Company. He has also admitted the same in his cross examination. The payment of gratuity amount of Rs.18,74,000/- for 20 years is not in dispute. It is better than that is prescribed under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972. There is clear term in Ex.D.5 regarding the maximum of 20 years. As such, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim gratuity for 22 years, Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the additional gratuity amount sought by him and also the interest on the same. Hence, I answer these two issues in the negative.
14. Issue No.6:- In view of the above findings on points No. 1 to 5 and additional issue No.1, the plaintiff is not entitled for any claim made in the suit. Hence, I answer this issue in the negative.
15. Issue No.7:- In view of the above findings on issue Nos. 1 to 6, the following is made.
O R DE R O.S.No.1138/2016 The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Both the parties are directed to bear their own costs.
( Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25 th day of June 2019.) (Jaishankar) XV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
A N N E X U R E WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS :-
PW.1 : Rajnarayanan M. DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS:-
Ex.P.1 Appointment letter issued by INCOWAX Ex.P.2 Appointment Confirmation letter Ex.P.3 Promotion Letter Ex.P.4 Promotion letter dated 27.07.1995 Ex.P.5 Promotion letter dated 28.07.1998 Ex.P.6 Promotion letter dated 26.08.2000 Ex.P.7 Salary Increment letter dated 27.05.1991 Ex.P.8 More Salary Increment letter dated 01.04.1992 Ex.P.9 More Salary Increment letter dated 01.02.1993 Ex.P.10 More Salary Increment letter dated26.04.1993 Ex.P.11 Another Salary Increment letter dated 30.04.1994 O.S.No.1138/2016 Ex.P.12 Revised Salary letter dated 02.08.1996 Ex.P.13 One More Revised Salary letter dated04.08.1997 Ex.P.14 One more Revised Salary letter dated 11.08.1999 Ex.P.15 One more Revised Salary letter dated 02.08.2000 Ex.P.16 One more Revised Salary letter dated 24.11.2001 Ex.P.17 Revised Salary and other benefits letter dated 09.08.2002 Ex.P.18 Revised Salary and other benefits letter dated 24.11.2003 Ex.P.19 Revised Salary and other benefits letter dated 17.01.2005 Ex.P.20 Revised Salary and other benefits letter dated 09.05.2006 Ex.P.21 Salary Revision letter dated 09.03.2007 Ex.P.22 Letter date 09.07.2010 Ex.P.23 Another letter dated 19.05.2011 Ex.P.24 Letter dated 25.05.2012 Ex.P.25 Letter dated 06.04.1993 Ex.P.26 One more letter dated 11.08.2001 Ex.P.27 Letter dated 22.02.2002 Ex.P.28 Letter dated 03.04.2003 Ex.P.29 Letter dated 12.09.2003 Ex.P.30 Letter dated 02.04.2004 Ex.P.31 Letter dated 02.04.2005 Ex.P.32 Letter dated 06.04.2006 Ex.P.33 Letter dated 03.01.2008 Ex.P.34 Letter dated 24.07.2009 Ex.P.35 Letter dated 10.09.2010 O.S.No.1138/2016 Ex.P.36 Letter dated 19.05.2011 Ex.P.37 E-mail dated 30.05.2013 Ex.P.38 E-mail dated 31.05.2013 Ex.P.39 Review Performance Report dated 31.08.2012 Ex.P.40 E-mail dated 09.05.2013 Ex.P.41 Certificate issued U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 Ex.P.42 Extract pertaining to the details of defendant Company, obtained from the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:-
D.W.1:- Jayathirtha.R DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:-
Ex.D.1 E-mail Letter
Ex.D.2 Copy of E-mail dated 28.08.2012
Ex.D.3 Copy of E-mail dated 09.10.2012
Ex.D.4 Board Resolution dated 17.11.2017
Ex.D.5 Employees Group Gratuity
Ex.D.6 Human Resource Manual
Ex.D.7 Management Incentive Scheme
Ex.D.8 Copy of E-mail dated 23.11.2012
(Jaishankar)
XV Addl.City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru.
O.S.No.1138/2016
O.S.No.1138/2016