Bangalore District Court
Gangadhara Murthy S C vs Sami Labs Ltd on 9 January, 2026
ABC010149292021
IN THE COURT OF THE LX ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-61)
:Present :
Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy H.S., B.Sc., LL.B.,
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated: this the 9th day of January, 2026
O.S. No.3850/2021
Plaintiff : Sri. S.C.Gangadhara Murthy
S/o Late S.Chandrashekara
Charya,
Aged about 63 years,
R/at Gana Ridhi Apartments,
Upadhyaya Layout,
Nagadevanahalli, Bengaluru.
(By Sri. S.B., Adv.)
Vs
Defendant : Sami Labs Ltd.,
A Company registered under
Companies Act, having its
2 O.S. No.3850/2021
Corporate Office at 19/1 & 19/2
1st Main, 2nd Phase, Peenya
Industrial Area, Bengaluru
Rep. by its Founder, Chairman
and Managing Director
Dr. Muhammed Majeed
(By : Sri. S.S.N., Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 13.11.2020 till realisation and costs of the suit.
2. In brief the contents of the plaint may be stated as under:
The plaintiff was appointed by Defendant company as General Manager HR consequent to a Confidentiality and Employment Agreement dated 19.09.2013 and he has successfully discharged all his functions and has excelled in his work. Further, as a recognition of his good service, despite plaintiff reaching the age of 3 O.S. No.3850/2021 superannuation, he has been given extensions of service along with periodical increments and also promotion. Plaintiff has been promoted as "Vice President - HR vide letter dated 08.07.2017 and has been discharging his function in such designation till the date when he was untenably and abruptly asked to leave the organization without notice.
It is submitted that, the Plaintiff got the first extension of service vide Document dated 14th January 2016 extending his service for two years, after reaching 58 years, at a stretch till 31st January 2018 informing the Plaintiff that "All other terms and conditions of your appointment order remain unchanged". The second extension of service was vide Document dated 31st January 2018 which was for extension up to 31st January 2019 for one more year informing the Plaintiff that "All other terms and conditions of your appointment remain unchanged." The next extension was vide Document dated 11th January 2019 extending the service for one more year up to 31st January 2020 informing the Plaintiff that "All other terms and 4 O.S. No.3850/2021 conditions of your appointment remain unchanged."
Nearing to this date, the Plaintiff has informed the Defendant whether he should continue working or wind up his services. For this the Defendant has informed the Plaintiff saying that there is no need to retire as Plaintiff is healthy and the Plaintiff should remain in service till he attains the age of 70 years and even beyond that as the Plaintiff has contributed a lot. Plaintiff has diligently discharged his services for about 7 Years in Defendant Organisation and his salary was revised to Rs.2,00,000/- per month.
When the matter stood thus, on 13.11.2020, in the afternoon at about 1.30 PM, the Chairman and Managing Director of Sami Labs Ltd., has sought to call upon the Plaintiff and unilaterally, arbitrarily and without any sufficient cause, asked Plaintiff to 'check out of premises' immediately informing that full and final settlement of the dues will be worked out and paid as on 13.11.2020 as last working day at Defendant Organisation. Plaintiff was coerced to provide an undertaking along with a Receipt to Defendant, on his behalf, that he has resigned 5 O.S. No.3850/2021 from his services from 20.09.2020 and further that he is not entitled to any other pay or allowance, apart from what is offered by Defendant. The said actions are totally illegal, discriminatory, arbitrary and in abuse of Defendant's dominant position. The Defendant has delayed the payments due to Plaintiff for months of October and November, 2020 has paid the same only on 10th December, 2020 and declared the same as consultancy charges. The same is contrary to defendant's action as till the said date of 13.11.2020 the plaintiff has been discharging his functions as Vice President-HR. Hence, the defendant has sought to pay a sum of Rs.8,05,216/- as full and final settlement. The defendant is in breach of contractual obligations and liable to pay Rs.6,00,000/- towards three months salary and Rs.2,00,000/- leave encashment and Rs.2,00,000/- as nominal damages. The defendant is liable to pay a total sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in order to settle all the claims of the plaintiff.
3. After registration of the suit, the suit summons was issued to the defendant through court. After due 6 O.S. No.3850/2021 service of summons, the defendant appeared through its counsel and filed written statement by denying the various allegations raised in the plaint. Defendant admitted that the plaintiff was appointed as General Manager-HR vide letter of appointment dated 19/9/2013 and as per the terms of appointment/agreements ceased to operate on the plaintiff attaining the age of 58 years on 21/1/2016. Thereafter, the plaintiff vide letter dated 7/1/2016 requested the defendant to extend his services and considering the same, his service was extended for 2 years and his service was extended till 31.1.2020 and was not renewed. Due to trust which the plaintiff had managed to achieve with the managing director of the defendant company, the managing director was firmly of the view that the plaintiff has followed the principles which is in vogue in the defendant company, in so far as employment and consultancy fee is concerned. the plaintiff was to be paid 50% of the salary drawn when he was an employee of the company towards consultancy fee post his retirement which would accrue to Rs. 1,00,000 per month.
The plaintiff has not involved and followed the COVID- 19 protocols and standard operating procedures and he was always in the habit of coming late to office/factory resulting in chaos in the office/factory premises. As the plaintiff was 7 O.S. No.3850/2021 not attending office, the managing director of the company had to take over the responsibility to ensure that all protocols/SOP's were followed. When the managing director of the company started interacting with the officers of the company, the plaintiff shirked from his responsibilities under the guise of being a senior citizen and expressed his willingness to stop working in the company and offered to resign from services w.e.f. 30/9/2020. The defendant for the first time when interacting with the accounts Audit head of the company came to know about the plaintiff by misusing the trust reposed in him and mislead the managing director of the defendant company had obtained signatures of the managing director on papers where by, consultancy fee paid to the plaintiff was on par with the salary/remuneration and was drawing consultancy fee in excess of what was to be paid to those who were engaged post their retirement. The plaintiff for the period from 21/1/2016 till November 2020 was entitled for consultancy fee of Rs. 72,500/- per month. However, the plaintiff had mischievously drawn a sum of Rs. 1,45,000/- per month towards consultancy fee. As the plaintiff offered to tender his resignation, in view of the fact that the position held by the plaintiff was very vital to the organisation, the defendant had to find a replacement and 8 O.S. No.3850/2021 needed some time. The plaintiff was hence continued to be employed as a consultant for the period from 01/10/2020 to 13/11/2020. The plaintiff was paid a sum of Rs. 8,05,216/- in full & final settlement of his dues. The plaintiff is estopped from making additional monetary claims from the defendant. The plaintiff in order to harass and extract more money from the defendant has now concocted a story to make out a case, that he was coerced by the defendant to tender his resignation. Hence, prays court to dismiss the suit.
4. Upon considering the pleadings of the parties this court has framed the following Issues:
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that three month prior notice was to be given to him as per Clause-17 of Appointment letter dated 19.09.2013?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that due to failure on part of defendant to give prior notice he is entitled to three months emoluments?
3) Whether the defendant proves that the terms of agreement dated 19.09.2013 came to an end w.e.f. 31.01.2020?
4) Whether the defendant proves that plaintiff was entitled to 50% of the pay 9 O.S. No.3850/2021 during the period plaintiff worked as consultant?
5) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to Rs.10,00,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from 13.11.2023 from defendant and that plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages?
6) What order or decree ?
5. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff adduced evidence as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P19 documents in support of his claim. In order to prove his contention, the Vice President-HR of the defendant company adduced evidence as DW.1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D16 documents in support of its claim.
6. Heard both sides. Perused the oral and documentary evidence placed on record.
7. On the basis of the available materials on record, my findings on the above Issues are here under:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative
Issue No.2: In the Affirmative
Issue No.3: In the Negative
Issue No.4: In the Negative
Issue No.5: Partly in the Affirmative
10 O.S. No.3850/2021
issue No.6: As per the final order,
for the following;
REASONS
8. Issue Nos.1 to 4: Since these Issues are interlinked with each other, they are taken up for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
9. Before adverting to contentions raised by the parties to lis, court proceed to examine admitted facts in this case. It is not in dispute that plaintiff was appointed as general manager HR vide letter of appointment dated 19.9.2013. It is also not in dispute that plaintiff had been promoted as Vice President-HR on 8.7.2017 before termination. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff was terminated from service on 13.11.2020.
10. Plaintiff contended that his service was extended from 14.1.2016 to 31.1.2018 in the first extension, thereafter it was extended from 31.1.2018 to 31.1.2019 and thereafter from 11.1.2019 to 31.1.2020 with same terms and conditions of his original appointment letter. In order to prove the same, plaintiff produced Ex.P6 to P8/extension letters issued by defendant company. Plaintiff contended that as per the 11 O.S. No.3850/2021 clause-17 of the appointment letter marked at Ex.P2, his services can be terminated by giving 3 months notice. The company is not bound to give any reason for termination but reserves the right to pay salary in notice period. Ex.P2/appointment letter and Ex.P19 confidentiality and employment agreement are produced to substantiate the same. Clause-17 of Ex.P2 and clause 11 of Ex.P19 substantiates the fact that defendant has to give 3 months prior notice before termination. The incumbent Vice President who adduced evidence as DW.1 admitted liability of the company to issue 3 months notice prior to termination.
11. Ex.P3 to P10 establish the fact that plaintiff worked with defendant company as Vice President HR. It is further pertinent to note that defendant company issued Ex.P10 / increment letter dated 22.9.2020 to the plaintiff wherein his salary had been increased from Rs.1,76,755/- to Rs.2,00,000/- with retrospective effect i.e., from 1.1.2020.
12. The contention of the defendant company is that the service of plaintiff came to an end by superannuation in the year 2016 as per the clause-10 of the appointment letter. Defendant is estopped to contend that service of the plaintiff 12 O.S. No.3850/2021 came to end by superannuation in the year 2016 in the presence of Ex.P6 to P8.
13. It is pertinent to note that as per Ex.P8 service of the plaintiff was extended only till 31.1.2020. The contention of the plaintiff is that he was working as Vice President-HR on the date of termination of his service i.e., on 13.11.2020. Now court proceed to examine whether the said contention can be taken into consideration in the absence of written extension by the employer. Defendant contended that after the efflux of extension period i.e., 31.1.2020, plaintiff was working as consultant with the defendant company. In order to prove the contention defendant has not produced letter of appointment of the plaintiff as consultant or Board resolution in that regard or salary structure fixed by the defendant company for the post of consultant. As such no documentary evidence is available to substantiate the contention of the defendant that plaintiff had been appointed as consultant after 31.1.2020 and prior to his termination.
14. It is not in dispute that plaintiff worked till 13.11.2020 with defendant company, the bone of contention between parties to lis is whether plaintiff worked as consultant or Vice President -HR. DW.1 admitted in his 13 O.S. No.3850/2021 evidence that semi-staff welfare fund and Provident fund of the employee would be deducted from the respective employee of the company if the employee is permanently appointed and not from the consultant. DW.1 in his cross-examination further admitted contents of Ex.P10 wherein increment was provided to the plaintiff by the company on 22.9.2020. DW.1 further admitted that he has no documents to establish that plaintiff was removed from the post of Vice-President -HR in between 22.9.2020 and 13.11.2020. Ex.P9 and P10 produced by the plaintiff clearly establish the factum that plaintiff worked as Vice-President-HR and not as consultant during his tenure with the defendant company. The contents of Ex.P9 and P10 are not in dispute. As such, defendant is estopped to contend that plaintiff worked as consultant at the time of termination. Under the rule of estoppel, a person shall not be allowed to say one thing at one time and opposite of it at another time. A person is estopped from denying or withdrawing his previous assertion, or from going back upon his own act, or asserting state of things opposed to what he has formerly asserted by words or conduct. As such defendant is not permitted to approbate and reprobate with regard to designation of plaintiff at the time of termination. As such the evidence available before the court unequivocally 14 O.S. No.3850/2021 establish that plaintiff till 13.11.2020 worked with defendant as Vice-President -HR and not as consultant.
15. The further question merits consideration is in the absence of written extension whether employee is entitled for written prior notice from the company as per the clause-11 of Ex.P19. It is evident from record that prior to termination plaintiff was a permanent employee with defendant company, even though clause-10 of Ex.P2 provides that age of retirement is 58 years. Defendant company by extension of the tenure of plaintiff, given gobye to the said clause, as such defendant is not permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same time with regard to application of clauses provided under the appointment letter or under the confidentiality and employment agreement.
16. The another point that merits consideration is whether plaintiff is entitled for earned leave for remaining 30 days. It is evident that defendant paid Rs.1,00,000/- towards earned leave to the plaintiff as per Ex.P14. Now plaintiff contended that he is entitled for earned leave for remaining 30 days. It is pertinent to note that Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act came to be amended in the year 2020 and the amendment was duly promulgated on 15 O.S. No.3850/2021 17.2.2021. In this case plaintiff was terminated on 13.11.2020. As such the amended provisions of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishment Act cannot be called into aid by the plaintiff. As such plaintiff is entitled only for remaining 15 days earned leave. As such issue No.1 and 2 are answered in the Affirmative and issue No.3 and 4 are answered in the Negative.
17. Issue No.5 : Plaintiff along with the notice period salary and earned leave amount also claiming damages to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- on the premise that due to abrupt termination of his service during COVID pandemic, that cause severe financial strain and hardship, hence he is entitled for damages to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- along with dues plaintiff is also claiming interest for the due amount.
18. Section 73 of Contract Act which provides that party who suffers from the breach is entitled to compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it. Thus the plain reading of the provisions of Section 73 of Contract Act provides that for the purposes of applicability of 16 O.S. No.3850/2021 compensatory damages, that sort of compensation is payable which is loss or damage caused to him that naturally arose in the usual course of things are which parties knew at the time of making the contract. Section 73 also provides that such compensation is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach.
19. When there is a monetary claim which is made from the party breaching the contract on account of default to repay the same on the specified date, the party at the default is liable to the principle sum along with the element of the interest which is a sufficient compensation as a consequence which is damage or loss that arose in the usual course of the things on account of the said payment and not beyond the said amount the sum which could have utilized to earn profit. This is evidenced from the illustration (n) appended to the Section 73 of Contract Act explaining the said principle. The said illustration reads as under:
"A Contracts to pay sum of money to B on a day specified. A does not pay money on that day. B in consequence of not receiving the money on that day is unable to pay his debts and is totally ruined. A is not liable to make good to B anything except the principle sum he contracted to pay together with interest up to the day of the payment."17 O.S. No.3850/2021
20. The underlying principle behind this illustration is that the said loss caused suddenly to the recipient was neither direct consequence of the breach as it did not happen in the usual course of the things nor was the same known to any of the parties to the contract at the time of making the contract. Applying the said principle to the instant case, plaintiff entitled to receive outstanding payment with interest. As such plaintiff is not permitted to claim compensation.
21. Section 34 of C.P.C provides for awarding of interest by the Court. Section 34 of CPC has no application to interest prior to the institution of this suit. Section 34 CPC provides that Court may in the decree, order, interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudicated from the date of suit to the date of decree.
22. The interest awarded by the Court may conveniently be divided under 3 different heads :
1. Interest prior to filing of suit.
2. Interest pendentilite i.e., from date of the suit to the date of decree.
3. Interest from the date of decree till payment.18 O.S. No.3850/2021
23. Let me consider all the heads :
1. Interest prior to suit.
Section 34 has no application to interest prior to the institution of the suit since it is a matter of substantiative law, it can be awarded only when there is an agreement express or implied between the parties or by way of damages.
2. Interest pendentilite.
The award of interest from the date of suit, to the date of decree is at the discretion of the Court.
3. The interest from the date of decree.
24. It is incumbent for the employer to pay the wages of the employee before his sweat dries. In this case, employee constrained to approach court to get his emoluments. Hence, employer is liable to pay interest which normally charged by nationalized banks. Nationalised Banks lend loan at the rate of 9% to the borrowers. As such, plaintiff is entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the notice period salary and outstanding earned leave i.e., Rs.7,00,000/- from the date of suit till realisation. In view of the same, Issue No.5 answered partly in the affirmative.
19 O.S. No.3850/202125. Issue No.6: In view of the above reasoning and findings on Issues Nos.1 to 5, I proceed to pass the following :
: ORDER :
Suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed in part with interest and costs.
Plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- with interest at the rate 9% per annum from the date of suit till its realization and costs of the suit.
Defendant is hereby directed to deposit the above sum within 60 days of this Judgment.
Failing which, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to recover the same in terms of decreetal command in accordance with law.
Office to draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I directly on computer, typed by him, corrected, then signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this 9th day of January, 2026) (MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY H.S.) LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.20 O.S. No.3850/2021
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff Bank:
PW.1 - S.C.Gangadhara Murthy List of documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff Bank:
Ex.P.1 : C.V. of Plaintiff Ex.P.2 : Letter of appointment dtd.19.9.2013 Ex.P.3 : Letter of Promotion dtd.8.7.2017 Exs.P.4 : Letter of increment dtd.10.6.2015 Ex.P.5 : Letter of increment dtd.25.5.2018 Ex.P.6 : Letter dtd.14.1.2016 Ex.P.7 : Letter dtd.31.8.2018 Ex.P8 : Letter dtd.31.8.2018 Ex.P9 : Pay slip Ex.P10 : Letter dtd.22.2.2020 Ex.P11 : Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P12 : E-mail dtd.10.12.2020 Ex.P13 : E-mail dtd.11.12.2020 Ex.P14 : E-mail dtd.18.01.2021 21 O.S. No.3850/2021 Ex.P15 : Whatsapp conversation Ex.P16 : Copy of notice Ex.P17 : Office copy of legal notice Ex.P18 : Reply notice Ex.P19 Confidentiality and employment agreement
Witnesses examined on behalf of defendant:
DW.1 : Mohandas K.S. List of document marked on behalf of defendant:
Ex.D1 : Letter dtd.16.1.2016
Ex.D2 : Letter dtd.27.1.2018
Ex.D3 Biometric attendance report
Ex.D4 E-mail
Ex.D5 Letter dtd.11.11.2020
Ex.D6 E-mail
Ex.D7 E-mail
22 O.S. No.3850/2021
Ex.D8 E-mails
Ex.D9 E-mail
Ex.D10 E-stamp paper
Ex.D11 Application
Ex.D12 Receipt
Ex.D13 Copy of receipt dtd.19.12.2020
Ex.D14 Copies of cheques dtd.18.12.2020 & 16.12.20 Ex.D15 Copy of letter dtd.17.12.2020 Ex.D16 Resolution LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.