Delhi District Court
Anil Kumar Babbar vs Sh. Manas Ranjan Behera on 27 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH.GAURAV RAO, ADJ-03 / NEW
DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW
DELHI.
CS No. 58390/2016
CNR No. DLND01-006968-2016
Anil Kumar Babbar
S/o Sh. K.K. Babbar
R/o S-50, Vijay Vihar
Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi - 110059
.....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Manas Ranjan Behera
Project Manager (RMSA)
EdCIL (India) Limited,
6th Floor, Vijaya Building
17 Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001.
2. EdCIL (India) Limited
Through its CMD
Ed.CIL House
18A, Sector-16A, Noida-201301
3. Sh. Diptiman Das
Chairman and Managing Director
EdCIL (India) Limited
18A, Sector-16A, Noida-201301
4. Sh. Sunil K. Mathur
Manager (HR & Admin)
EdCIL (India) Limited
18A, Sector-16A, Noida-201301
....Defendants
CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 1/32
Date of institution : 27.07.2016
Date on which reserved for judgment : 27.04.2023
Date of decision : 27.04.2023
Decision : Dismissed
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking damages and recovery of interest.
Plaint/plaintiff's version
2. It is the plaintiff's case that he is a permanent resident of the above address & a citizen of India.
2.1 It is his case that he was engaged by the defendants as Consultant (Financial Management) in Rastriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA) Project (A MHRD Project) New Delhi on contractual basis for one year, from 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2014, on a consolidated consultancy fee of Rs. 40,000/- per month. It is his case that he was posted by them at Rastriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA) Project, TSG-RMSA office, New Delhi and it was stated in their office order/appointment letter dated 02.01.2014 that the said post will not confer any right whatsoever, in him, for continuance and/or regular employment either in RMSA Project or EdCIL (India) Limited and that the said engagement is purely temporary & project based.
CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 2/32 2.2 It is his case that defendant no. 1 is the Project Manager, responsible for day to day functioning of the project, defendant no. 2 is the company with whom he had worked & agreement was executed between them, defendant no. 3 is its CMD and defendant no. 4 is the Manager HR & Admn. of defendant no. 2.
2.3 It is his case that the office order/appointment letter was signed and executed between them for a contractual period of one year i.e. 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2014 and in case of renewal, new agreement was to be signed between them for extending the time period/services and the terms & conditions which were mentioned in office order are applicable upon both the parties.
2.4 It is his case that he provided good & bonafide services to the defendants for the welfare of the company, without any complaint of whatsoever nature and after expiry of the contractual period, the defendants again approached him for renewal for another one year upon signing of fresh contract on the fresh terms & conditions.
2.5 It is his case that he informed the defendants that he is neither willing to continue his services nor wants to sign fresh agreement with them due to the reason that he is not getting proper time & schedule for his higher study and other domestic problems upon which the defendants requested him to provide consultancy services for three months without signing any fresh CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 3/32 agreement on the same consolidated consultancy fee of Rs. 40,000/- per month. It is his case that they also assured him & agreed that no boundation/objection will be raised if & whenever he left the services and that they will pay/release the full consultancy fee to him and hence he worked with them till 13.03.2015, however, the defendants cheated him and did not release the amount for the extended period i.e. 01.01.2015 to 13.03.2015 totaling to Rs. 1,01,993.
2.6 It is his case that during the extended period of 3 months, the senior procurement consultant left the company on 02.01.2015 and defendant no. 1 with malafide intention & for harassing him, provided the extra work load/pressure upon him by asking him to do the work of senior procurement consultant which was not related to his work and he was not appointed for that procurement work but due to malafide & ill intention, the defendants tried to physically & mentally harass him to leave the work/services because of which he got/felt very upset, used to work in the office till late night and reached his house at very odd hours.
2.7 It is his case that he worked in the defendants company from 01.01.2015 to 13.03.2015 but defendants with malafide intention did not release the month to month consultancy fee/salary & the extra expenses and that he had sent notice of resignation to the defendants on 09.03.2015, which was accepted by them.
CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 4/32 2.8 It is his case that the defendants continuously harassed him with workload/pressure and when he communicated with the defendants, through email, they with malafide intention did not respond. It is his case that when he contacted them for releasing his month to month consultancy fee/salary, they, with malafide & ill intentions, did not release the same or the extra expenses i.e. mobile bill, conveyance charge.
2.9 It is his case that instead the defendants sent a false demand notice of Rs. 1,20,000/- to him, vide email dated 19.05.2015, which demand is totally wrong, false & arbitrary and grabbed his consultancy fee & expenses charges and that the said notice was replied by him on 28.05.2015 & 01.06.2015.
2.10 It is his case that that the defendants did not pay the amount of Rs. 1,01,993/- and instead stated that as he had not served three months prior notice to them, therefore, they will not pay any amount to him, though he was not bound to serve them three months notice as there was no agreement for the extended period.
2.11 It is his case that defendant no.1 illegally pressurized him to resign from services by applying the illegal tactics i.e. extra & unnecessary workload, therefore defendant no. 1 is liable for harassing & torturing him by misusing his official power and CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 5/32 that he sent legal notice to the defendants on 12.06.2015 but to no avail.
2.12 It is his case that he suffered harassment, torture physical & mental agony due to the conduct of the defendants and subsequently he filed a claim petition before the Labour Commissioner where defendants appeared and which was subsequently compromised by him on 03.03.2016 and he received a sum of Rs. 1,00,058/- (Rs. 97,644/- towards pending consultancy fee and Rs. 2,414/- towards pending conveyance & mobile bill amt.) without prejudice of his legal rights.
2.13 It is his case that the defendants retained his legally due salary/ consultancy fee from 14.03.2015 till 03.03.2016 i.e. for about one year and used the said amount for their benefit & personal use thereby causing wrongful loss to him and wrongful gain to themselves. It is his case that he is entitled to interest @24% p.a. from the due date till the amount paid on 03.03.2016.
2.14 It is his case that he is/was the sole bread earner of his family, consisting of his wife & old aged parents, at that time his wife was pregnant and as the defendants did not release the due payment, he suffered & had to take social help, loan from his nears & dears ones which caused severe mental agony besides physical trouble.
CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 6/32 2.15 It is his case that he suffered, harassment, torture, physical & mental agony, injury to his body & mind, fatigue and damages apart from litigation expenses in the case before Labour Commissioner due to the above conduct of the defendants which cannot be compensated in terms of money but he is restricting his claim for damages to the tune of Rs. 5 lakh. It is his case that he is also claiming Rs. 24,000/- as interest @ 24% from March 2015 to March 2016 and Rs. 85,000/- towards drafting charges, consultation and counsel fees, conveyance etc. which he incurred before the Labour Commissioner.
2.16 Hence the present suit.
Written Statement/defendants's version
3. It was pleaded that the present suit is barred under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the plaintiff had filed a claim petition before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, on 01.07.2015, which petition contained similar claims, as in the present suit and the same was disposed of upon a settlement between the parties on 03.03.2016, the settlement deeds were duly executed and hence the instant suit is not maintainable.
3.1 It was denied that the plaintiff had stated to them that he is neither willing to continue his services nor wanted to sign a fresh agreement with them due to the reason that he is not getting proper time & schedule for his higher studies and other CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 7/32 domestic problems. It was further denied that they requested him that if he was not ready to sign new agreement, for the welfare of the defendants/company, he may extend the three months' time period without signing a fresh agreement or that they had assured him that no objection will be raised if & whenever he left the services or that the salary of the extended period i.e from 01/01/2015 to 31/12/2015 totaling to Rs. 1,01,993/- was not released to him.
3.2 It was admitted that that during the extended period of 3 months, the senior procurement consultant had left the company, however, it was denied that defendant No. 1 had malafide intentions or that he harassed the plaintiff by providing extra work load or by pressurizing him to do the work of senior procurement consultant. It was denied that he was burdened with unnecessary work of procurement which was not related to his work or that they had malafide, ill intentions to physically & mentally harass him to compel him to leave the services and it was pleaded that the plaintiff was doing the same work as he was originally doing and he was provided a healthy & congenial atmosphere to work in.
3.3 It was denied that they did not release his month to month consultancy fee/salary or the extra expenses and it was stated that the issue of releasing the amount due to him has already been settled before the Labour Commissioner vide order dated 03/03/2016.
CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 8/32 3.4 It was admitted that a demand notice vide email dated 19/05/2015 was sent to him but it was denied that the same was false or wrong or arbitrary.
3.5 It was admitted that the plaintiff did not serve three months' prior notice, however, it was denied that they applied unlawful tactics to terminate his services. It was further denied that when the extended period was decided between them, there was no agreement requiring three months notice from the plaintiff, before leaving the job or that the plaintiff was not bound to serve three months' prior notice to them or that defendants had no right to send demand notice for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-.
3.6 It was denied that the plaintiff was subjected to any harassment or torture, or physical or mental agony by them. It was denied that the plaintiff's due salary or consultancy fees was illegally retained by them for their benefit or personal gains or that the plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 24% p.a. from the due date till 03/03/2016.
3.7 It was denied that plaintiff suffered harassment or torture or physical or mental agony or injury to his body or mind or fatigue in the case before the Labour Commissioner or that he had suffered damages due to any conduct of the Defendants.
CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 9/32 Replication
4. In his replication, plaintiff denied the averments of the written statement while simultaneously reiterating and reaffirming the contents of the plaint.
Admission/denial
5. No affidavit of admission denial was filed by either of the party.
Issues
6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed, by the Ld. Predecessor of this court, vide proceedings dated 15.12.2017:-
1. Whether the present suit is barred u/s 11 CPC? OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 6,09,000/-? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for an interest. If so at what rate and for what period? OPP
4. Relief.
Plaintiff's evidence
7. Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and he tender his evidence by way of affidavit Ex PW1/1 and relied upon the following documents:-
CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 10/32 A. Consultancy Agreement as Ex.PW1/A (colly.) B. office order No. 20 (154)/2010-HR dated 15.1.2015 as Ex.PW1/B. C. Resignation letter dated 09.03.2015 as Ex.PW1/C. D. Copies of E-mails and replies (13 pages) as Mark A (colly).
E. Legal notice dated 12.6.2015 ss Mark 'X'
F. RTI application dated 15.7.2015 as Ex.PW1/F.
G. Reply by APIO as Ex.PWI/G (colly).
H. Appeal before First Appellate Authority dated 11.9.2015
as Ex.PW1/H.
I. Reply dated 23.9.2015 as Ex.PW1/I.
J. Application dated 14.10.2015 as Ex.PW1/J.
K. Reply dated 5.1.2016 as Mark "Y".
L. Application dated 20.1.2016 as Ex.PW1/K.
M Notice of hearing of CIC as Ex.PWI/L.
N. Order dated 15.2.2016 passed by CIC as Ex.PWI/M.
O. Settlement Deed as Ex.PWI/N.
P. Copies of the Medical prescriptions and Bills as Ex.PI/O
(colly.).
Q Demand Notice dated 18.5.2015 as Ex.PW1/P.
R. Copy of reply as Mark Z.
S. Copy of office order dated 02.0.2014 as Mark Z1.
Defendant's evidence
CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 11/32
8. Defendants examined Sh. Devendra Kumar Sharma as DW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
1. Authority letter in his favour as Ex DW1/1
2. Appointment letter dated 02.01.2014 as Ex. DW1/2
3. Copy of office order dated 15.01.2015 as Ex. DW1/3
4. Copy of order of settlement deed dated 03.03.2016 as Ex.
DW1/4.
8.1 Defendants also examined Sh. Sunil Kumar Mathur as D4W-1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. D4W-1/A and relied upon copy of settlement deed dated 03.03.2016 Ex. DW3/1.
8.2 Defendants also examined Mr. Manas Ranjan Behera as D1W1 and he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. D1W1/A and relied upon copy of attendance sheet as Ex. DW-2/1.
Findings
9. I have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties, given due consideration to the rival contentions raised at bar and have carefully gone through the record.
9.1 All the issues being inter connected, they are taken up together and my finding is as under:-
CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 12/32 Issue no. 1: Whether the present suit is barred u/s 11 CPC?
OPD Issue no. 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 6,09,000/-? OPP Issue no. 3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for an interest. If so at what rate and for what period? OPP 9.2 In nutshell the case of the plaintiff is that he was engaged as a Consultant (Finance Management) in Rashtriya Madhyamik Siksha Abhiyan (RMSA) project by the defendants from 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2014 on a consolidated consultancy fee of Rs. 40,000/- per month and though the defendants sought an extension for another one year, however, as he was not inclined to accede to their request, nonetheless on their request he worked with them till 13.03.2015 and submitted his resignation on 09.03.2015 which was accepted by the defendants. It is his case that during this period i.e. 01.01.2015 till 13.03.2015 the defendants not only did not release the consultancy fees & other expenses to the tune of Rs. 1,01,993/-
thereby causing wrongful loss to him, but also harassed & tortured him physically as well as mentally by putting extra workload on him, which was beyond the terms of his employment.
9.3 The consultancy agreement as was executed between the plaintiff and defendant no. 2/EdCIL (India) Ltd. is on record as Ex. PW1/A. As per this agreement, the plaintiff had CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 13/32 agreed to provide the consultancy services to the defendants for a period of one year i.e. from 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2014 at a consolidated fee of Rs. 40,000/- per month. After the expiry of this initial period of one year the defendants vide order dated 15.01.2015 i.e. Ex. PW1/B extended the plaintiff's tenure as a consultant for another one year i.e. 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2015, however, this was subject to execution of agreement between the parties, which was admittedly never executed. It is the plaintiff's case that he was not inclined to work as a consultant any more and only on the request of the defendants, he agreed to work for 3 months and accordingly worked till 13.03.2015, having submitted his resignation on 09.03.2015. It is his case that during this period not only the consultancy fee was not paid but he was subjected to physical & mental harassment, torture by putting extra workload on him which was beyond his contractual obligation/terms of employment.
9.4 According to the plaintiff he had orally informed Mr. Manas Ranjan Behera/ defendant no. 1 that he was not willing to sign fresh agreement with the defendants. Admittedly there is no written communication vide which he was requested by Mr. Manas Ranjan Behera or for that matter the other defendants to work for a period of 3 months nor did he give anything in writing to the defendants showing his disinclination to work with them in terms of Ex. PW1/B. The relevant portion of cross examination of PW1/plaintiff in this regard reads as under:-
CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 14/32 "It is correct that in my affidavit Ex. PW-1/1 I have stated that I had told the defendant that I am neither wiling nor want to sign the fresh agreement. This fact was told orally to my immediate boss Mr. Manas Ranjan Behera.
Q. Did you tell the aforesaid facts to any other person in defendant company?
Ans. No. (Vol. Since Mr. Manas Ranjan Behera was the immediate boss and I was required to report to him, I informed only him).
I had informed Mr. Manas Ranjan Behera in the beginning of January, 2015. I do not have any written communication in that regard as the information was given orally as already stated above.
It is wrong to suggest that I had never informed Mr. Manas Ranjan Behera in that regard. It was Mr. Manas Ranjan Behera who had requested me to work for at least 3 months if I was not ready to sign new agreement.
It is wrong to suggest that no such request was made to me by Mr. Manas Ranjan Behera. It is correct that the extension period offered by the defendant company to me was for a period of 1 year starting from January, 2015. (Vol. It is a matter of record as the agreement is already there on the court record.). It is correct that I have worked with the defendant company for the period from January, 2015 till 13th March, 2015. I did not sign the extension agreement with the defendant company. It is incorrect to suggest that I did not sign the extension agreement deliberately so that I do not have to serve the notice period."
9.5 Hence without any agreement between the parties, without signing/executing an agreement in terms of Ex. PW1/B, the plaintiff continued to work as a consultant with the defendants. There were no terms & conditions, no contractual obligation, no agreement binding the parties for the extended period i.e. 01.01.2015 to 13.03.2015. Why the plaintiff did not sign any agreement in terms of Ex. PW1/B and why he continued to work till 13.03.2015 has not been satisfactorily explained by the plaintiff. Plaintiff was not employed by Mr. Manas Ranjan Behera/defendant no. 1 but by defendant no. 2/EdCIL (India) CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 15/32 Ltd. Defendant no. 1 had only a supervisory role but he had no authority to employ the plaintiff on behalf of defendant no. 2 or request him to continue to work for defendant no. 2 or as regards the payment of his dues. Any communication, even if it was oral as is claimed, with respect to whether he was willing to continue as a consultant and sign agreement pursuant to Ex. PW1/B or not should have been with EdCIL (India) Ltd. and not with Mr. Manas Ranjan Behera. If he communicated it to Mr. Manas Ranjan Behera or continued to work on his oral request, same was at his own peril and EdCIL (India) Ltd. was under no contractual obligation whatsoever.
9.6 According to the plaintiff, he was harassed, tortured mentally as well as physically by putting extra workload on him by Mr. Manas Ranjan Behera and he has further claimed that same was done deliberately, malafidely so as to compel him to resign. However, the said pleadings/claims are highly contrary and inconsistent with the other claims made by the plaintiff. On one hand he claims that Mr. Manas Ranjan Behera requested him to provide his services, continue to work with the defendants for atleast three months but on the other hand he claims that he was mentally & physically harassed so as to compel him to leave the services. It absolutely sans logic that a person who requests him to work for another 3 months and whose request he concedes to, would burden him with extra workload or for that matter mentally & physically harass or torture him so as to compel him CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 16/32 to resign.The relevant portion of the plaint in this regard reads as under:-
"6.........then defendants requested to plaintiff that if plaintiff is not ready to sign new agreement, so for the welfare of defendants/company and they requested to the plaintiff for extending the three months time period without signing the fresh agreement between the defendants and the plaintiff on the same consolidated consultancy fee of Rs. 40,000/- per month, and the defendants assured to plaintiff that they will pay the same Rs.40,000/- to him per month.........
...........then the defendant no. 1/ Sh. Manas Ranjan Behera (PM) with malafide intention and harassing the plaintiff, provided the extra work load/pressure upon plaintiff to do the work of senior procurement consultant and also indulged the plaintiff in the unnecessary work of procurement which was not related to work of plaintiff and he was not appointed for that procurement work but due to malafide and ill intention, the defendants tried to physically and mentally harass the plaintiff to left the work/services......."
9.7 According to him, he was burdened with extra workload on account of resignation of Mr. Harish Kumar, on 02.01.2015, who was Senior Procurement Consultant with the defendants. If indeed Mr. Harish Kumar had resigned on 02.01.2015 and the plaintiff was burdened with the extra workload, in my considered opinion, the plaintiff would not have continued to work with the defendants till 13.03.2015, more so while he was not being paid the monthly consultancy fee and the expenses. The relevant portion of cross examination of PW1/plaintiff in this regard reads as under:-
"Q. What was the extra workload allegedly put upon you by Sh. Manas Ranjan Behera as stated by you in para 7 of your affidavit Ex. PW-1/1?
Ans. I was appointed as Consultant Financial Management. But on 02nd of January, 2015 Mr. Harish Kumar Senior Procurement Consultant resigned from the defendant company.
CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 17/32 Mr. Manas Ranjan Behera deliberately assigned the work of Mr. Harish Kumar to me."
9.8 Mere assigning of extra work cannot amount to harassing or torturing the plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to explain what grudges Mr. Manas Ranjan Behera held against him so as to harass or torture him. He has miserably failed to explain or prove any motive which weighed with Mr. Manas Ranjan Behera for allegedly torturing, harassing him.
9.9 As discussed above, the contract had already expired on 31.12.2014 and the plaintiff did not sign any agreement pursuant to Ex. PW1/B whereby he was offered extension of another one year. Therefore for the period he worked with the defendants i.e. 01.01.2015 to 13.03.2015 without signing any agreement was at his own peril, without any contractual obligation binding either of the party. Even if he was appointed as a Consultant (Financial Management) only, same was for a period upto 31.12.2014 and thereafter there were no terms & conditions, no contract governing his employment. Most importantly, even for the initial period upto 31.12.2014, Ex. PW1/A does not define or limit the scope of his work. The relevant portion of his cross examination is reproduced hereunder:-
"Q. Please see your Consultancy Agreement dated 01.01.2014 which is Ex. PW-1/A. From the said agreement can you point out the clause which defines your scope of work as Financial Management only?
Ans. Ex. PW-1/A contains only the terms and conditions of my appointment are mentioned but scope of work is not CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 18/32 mentioned in this agreement. (Vol. The same is mentioned in copy of the Office order dated 02.01.2014 which was marked as Mark-Z1 during my deposition on 09.04.2018. Further Vol. Today I have brought the original of the said office order copy of which was marked as Mark-Z1). (The Original Office Order is seen and returned. In view thereof Mark-Z1 is now marked as Ex. PW-1/Z).
Q. Can you point out from Ex. PW-1/Z which portion of the same defines your scope of work?
Ans. Yes. The very first line of Ex. PW-1/Z defines my role as "Consultant (Financial Management)".
It is incorrect to suggest that the portion of Ex. PW-1/Z mentioned in my answer to the last question is only regarding the name of my designation and does not in any way defines my role, responsibilities or job description. Q. Is it correct that in the Consultancy Agreement Ex. PW-1/A in clause 5 it is specifically mentioned that you may be assigned work apart from or in place of unit for which you have been selected for the programme. What do you have to say?
Ans. It is a matter of record. (Vol. But only other/ additional work related to my field i.e. Financial and not of other fields, could have been assigned to me.)"
9.10 Undoubtedly his designation was Consultant (Financial Management) but that by itself did not restrict defendant no. 2's or its officials's power to assign him any additional work they deemed fit. Moreover, as discussed above, assigning of additional work cannot by itself amount to harassment or torture unless the plaintiff could prove that it was done malafidely, with the ill intent to indeed cause harassment, torture. Plaintiff was also bound to prove that he was indeed tortured and harassed which he has miserably failed to prove the same. PW1, during his further cross examination stated as under:-
"It is incorrect to suggest that the defendant company was within its rights to assign any work to me. I have not placed on record any document to prove that any additional work as CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 19/32 assign to me. (Vol. However, if so desired I can place it on record.).
It is incorrect to suggest that I have not placed on record any such document as no such document exists. It was Mr. Manas Ranjan Behera my immediate boss who tried to cause physical and mental harassment to me.
Q. In what manner did Mr. Manas Ranjan Behera tried to cause you physical or mental harassment to you? Ans. By assigning me additional procurement related work which had been pending for the last 2 to 3 years and also by late sitting till 12:00 midnight during the appraisals of all the States.
I have not placed on record any document to show that I was ever asked to work till 12:00 midnight. (Vol. If so desired, I can file the same, particularly my punching attendance and sending emails at midnight timing.).
It is wrong to suggest that I have not placed on record any such document as no such documents exist."
9.11 Plaintiff miserably failed to prove on record that he was forced, compelled to work till midnight by the defendants, nonetheless, even if he worked till midnight, that by itself, does not amount to any harassment or torture. No doubt it does emerge from the cross examination D1W-1 that the plaintiff had been assigned the additional work of procurement, but that cannot amount to harassment or torture perse. The relevant portion of cross examination of D1W-1 in this regard reads as under:-
"(At this stage the witness is shown copy of an email dated 23.02.2015 at 11:27 a.m. purported to has been sent by the plaintiff to Ms. Nita Gupta with copy to Mr. Manas Ranjan Behera).
Q. I put it to you that vide the said email the plaintiff had informed that he was not concerned with procurement work. What do you have to say?
Ans. I must have received copy of the said email as I am also named therein as "Cc". It is correct that therein it is mentioned by the plaintiff that he has not concern with procurement work. (At this stage the said email is exhibited at Ex. D1W1/P-1) CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 20/32 (At this stage the witness is shown a list of files of procurement dated 13.03.2015).
Q. I put it to you that vide the said list of files, the files of procurement unit were returned by the plaintiff on 13.03.2015. What do you have to say?
Ans. It is correct.
(The said list is now exhibited as Ex. D1W1/P-2) It is correct that I am aware that the plaintiff was assigned additional work of Senior Consultant Procurement but it was assigned by the Divisional Head, RMSA Bureau, Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India."
9.12 Merely because he was assigned the work of procurement does not amount to his harassment or torture and under no circumstances any malafide can be attributed to either of the defendants for assigning him the additional work. Most importantly clause 5 of the Consultancy agreement Ex. PW1/A provided that the plaintiff could be assigned the additional work apart from or in place of the unit for which he has been selected for the program. No doubt Ex. PW1/A came to an end on 31.12.2014 but it is essentially this agreement on which the plaintiff is heavily relying upon for claiming the interest on the delayed payment of consultancy fees and expenses. The relevant portion of Ex. PW1/A read as under:-
"The First Party is required to attend office on all working days in a calender month to accomplish the task as per Terms of Reference. The Consultant may be assigned work apart from or in place of unit for which he/she has been selected for the program. In case of exigencies of work, the First Party will have to attend office on weekly off/holidays also."
9.13 Email dated 23.02.2015 Ex. D1W1/P1, which was written to one Nita Gupta with copy to Mr. Manas Ranjan Behera, was merely a request for allocating the procurement CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 21/32 work to some other person. In the said email the plaintiff nowhere claimed that the procurement work was given to him deliberately or malafidely merely to harass him or that same was given to him by Mr. Manas Ranjan Behera. Furthermore he was given the charge of the procurement work/files on 20.01.2015, as stands proved from D1W1/P2 and he had returned the files at the time of his resignation on 13.03.2015. It is beyond the contemplation of this court and absolutely not proved by the plaintiff as to how the assignment of the procurement work amounted to torture or harassment and to the extent as is claimed. This is more so when plaintiff could not prove or assign any motive, ill will or malafide to either of the defendants.
9.14 Though he claims of mental and physical torture, injury and seeks compensation/damages to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs, however, admittedly he has not filed any medical document or prescription to support the said claim or to prove that he had to undergo treatment, medication etc. for the said mental or physical injury. The relevant portion of his cross examination in this regard read as under:-
"I have not filed any document to show any physical or mental injury to my body or mind or to show any expenses incurred by me in that regard. It is wrong to suggest that no physical or mental agony has been caused to me. It is correct that I did not incur any expenditure on any harassment/ torture/ physical and mental agony, injury to my body or mind"
9.15 Prior to filing of the present case, plaintiff had filed a petition before the Labour Commissioner wherein a settlement CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 22/32 was arrived between the plaintiff and the defendants and the plaintiff was paid a sum of Rs. 87,880/- towards full and final settlement, payment towards consultation fees for the period 01.01.2015 to 13.03.2015. He was also paid a sum of Rs. 2414/- towards miscellaneous expenses to which he was entitled to on account of attending work uptill late hours. He was also given compensatory leave in lieu of work performed by him on holidays, which is evident from Ex. DW2/1, as was proved by D1W-1, as he was only entitled to the same and not for any financial benefit/compensation in terms of clause 6 of Ex. PW1/A. Hence he was paid all the dues and given relevant leaves for the relevant period for the extra hours/work/services provided by him. The relevant portion of cross examination of D1W-1 in this regard read as under:-
"Q. Whenever the plaintiff was called for work on holidays, public holiday, was he being paid for the same? Ans. Yes, either through the local conveyance re-imbursement or compensatory leave. There were no rules to pay any other extra charges for working on holidays/ public holidays. .............I am aware that the plaintiff herein had also filed a petition in the Labour Court claiming certain dues from defendant No. 2 herein. It is correct that whatever payment was made to the plaintiff in the labour court was in relation to his claim in the said petition. It is correct that the payment in the labour court was made on 03.03.2016."
9.16 Ex. DW2/1, which is the copy of print out of punching card/attendance sheet, further negates the plaintiff's claim that he used to work till midnight. The said attendance sheet is for the period January 2015 till the date of resignation and only once did the plaintiff stay in the office till midnight (on CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 23/32 25.02.2015) and most of the times he left the office at around 05.00/06.00 p.m. and on very few occasions at around 08.00/09.00 p.m. which are normal working hours. DW2/1 proves that the surplus working hours of the plaintiff were only 15 hours which is quite insignificant considering the duration for which he had worked i.e. for almost 2 and ½ months and as discussed above he was given compensatory leaves for the work/duty performed on holidays. Plaintiff could not negate defendant's case based upon DW2/1.
9.17 The relevant portion of the cross examination of the plaintiff qua the settlement read as under:-
Q. Please see the Settlement Deed which has been marked as Ex PW-1/N. Is it correct that the petition before the Labour Commissioner in which the said settlement deed has been recorded, was filed by you?
Ans. It is correct.
It is correct that the said petition was filed by me after I had left the services of the defendant. It is wrong to suggest that vide settlement deed Ex. PW-1/N I had settled all my claims against the defendants. It is further wrong to suggest that the present suit has been filed by me to cause harassment to the defendants as all my dues have already been settled vide settlement deed Ex. PW-1/N."
9.18 The settlement deed Ex. PW1/N is reproduced hereunder:-
Settlement Deed With reference to case no. C-69/ALC/LO/NDD/2015, I (Anil Kumar Babbar) have received cheque bearing no. 423306 dated 24.02.2016 for an amount of Rs. 87,880/- after deduction of TDS of Rs. 9,764/- towards full & final settlement / payment of consultancy fee for the period 01.01.2015 to 13.03.2015. The details of the payment is as under:-
CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 24/32 Total amount of consultancy fee - Rs. 97,644/-
TDS deduction - Rs. 9,764/-
Net amount payable - Rs. 87,880/-
Further, I do hereby declare that I do not have any claim / dues pending against EdCIL (India) Limited / RMSA project."
Settlement Deed With reference to case no. C-69/ALC/LO/NDD/2015, I (Anil Kumar Babbar) have received cheque bearing no. 423302 dated 24.02.2016 for an amount of Rs. 2,414/- towards the payment of Conveyance claim, Mobile claim & any other Misc expenses for the period 01.01.2015 to 13.03.2015.
Further, I do hereby declare that I do not have any claim dues pending against EdCIL (India) Limited / RMSA project."
9.19 The present suit was filed by the plaintiff only after the above settlement was arrived by him with the defendants. In case there was any such harassment, torture, as is alleged, then the plaintiff would not have arrived at any settlement with the defendants. Having arrived at a settlement with the defendants, the plaintiff ought not to have filed the present suit. Atleast he is not entitled to a sum of Rs. 24,000/- towards interest @ 24% per annum for the period March 2015 to March 2016 i.e. since the day when the consultancy fees/ miscellaneous expenses became due and till they were paid before the Labour Commissioner. He is similarly not entitled to Rs. 85,000/- as has been sought for drafting charges, consultation, counsel fee etc. in respect of the matter as was filed before the Labour Commissioner. Once he received an amount of Rs. 90,294/- after deduction of necessary TDS towards the dues on account of settlement he is not entitled to claim any interest or litigation expenses. He is absolutely CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 25/32 estopped from claiming the same. In case he was so entitled to he should not have settled the matter before the Labour Commissioner. Settling a matter and then claiming litigation expenses for the said matter or the interest on the amount received as per settlement is not only permissible but is morally wrong. It will be also pertinent to point out that the plaintiff did not bring on record the record/copy of the petition as was filed before the Labour Commissioner and thus it is not clear to the court as to what ground he had taken before the Labour Commissioner but the Labour Commissioner was empowered to look into all the grievances of the plaintiff, if any regarding the condition of the work/workmen. Plaintiff could have claimed harassment or torture before the Labour Commissioner in the petition which he ultimately settled. Having not lodged any such claim in the said petition, the present claim qua harassment, torture at work place, claim of being subjected to pressure and having suffered physical and mental injury is otherwise barred as per the provisions of Order II Rule 2 CPC.
9.20 Most importantly, though the plaintiff has alleged harassment, torture by the defendants, however, no such allegations were leveled against the defendants in letter and email of the even date i.e. 09.03.2015 i.e. Ex. PW1/C & Mark A vide which the plaintiff had tendered his resignation. The grounds mentioned for resignation were personal grounds, work pressure and he did not even once talk about any harassment or torture. Ex. PW1/C is reproduced hereunder:-
CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 26/32 "Subject: Submission of Resignation.
Dear Sir, I have been working on the post of Consultant (Financial Management) in the EdCIL India Limited, on contract basis, in the Project titled "Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA)" from 01 January, 2014.
Now, I intend to resign from my service on personal grounds w.e.f. 09th March, 2015 (as due to work pressure, I have to work for late hours & consequently, I am not able to attend my LLB. classes due to which I may not get my roll no.) and therefore request you to relieve me from my duties, latest by 13th of March, 2015 (A.N.) i.e. I am tendering a notice period of one week.
At this stage, it is also not out of place to state that my monthly emoluments are Rs. 40,000/- per month. Therefore, I request you to kindly release my all pending dues, including the emoluments from 01" January 2015 to till date (i.e. 13th March, 2015) at the earliest.
It is also requested that, I may kindly be issued an "Experience and No Objection" Certificate."
9.21 The above letter and email were followed by email dated 16.03.2015 i.e Mark A (colly) wherein also he did not allege any harassment/torture. The said email is reproduced hereunder:-
"Dear Sir Wishing you a pleasant day This has reference to your below mail on the captioned subject. In this regard, I would like to bring following into your notice:-
Our term of duly agreed & signed contract was w.e.f. 01-01- 2014 to 31-12-2014 only which has been expired and was not in force as on date of my resignation.
Thereafter, I had received office order no.: 20(154)/2010-HR dtd.: 15-01-2015 by which I was engaged as a Consultant (Financial Management) for a fresh term 01-01-2015 to 31-12- 2015.
The said order also states that an agreement is required to be executed which has not been executed till the date of resignation.
Hence, as there was no agreement in existence between me & EdCIL India Ltd. for w.e.f 01-01-2015 to 09-03-2015 i.e. date of resignation. Accordingly, my services do not fall within the CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 27/32 ambit of any agreement; requiring me to serve the notice period of three months.
Therefore, in light of the above facts, you are requested to release my fee for the term w.e.f 01-01-2015 to 13-03-2015 for the above period which has not been released till date."
9.22 Even in email dated 17.04.2015 he nowhere talks about harassment or torture and attributes the reasons for resignation as "owing to my academic commitments". The relevant portion of the said email is reproduced hereunder:-
Subject: Clarification on non-signing of Contract Agreement along with request full and final settlement of my dues. Reference: Letter of resignation submitted by the applicant dated 09/03/2015 along with agreement signed in the year 2014 and the extension order dated 15/01/2015 (copies enclosed). Dear Sir, I have being working as Consultant (Financial Management) in EdCIL India Limited from 01/01/2014 to 31/12/2014 under the agreement signed as referred above. Further, my service was extended as per the order no. 20(154)/2010-HR dated 15/01/2015 as referred above for another one year w.e.f. 01/01/2015 to 31/12/2015.
However, I wanted to leave the services owing to my academic commitments and hence I have submitted my resignation to the EdCIL India Limited on dated 09/03/2015 as referred above. But the company now requires me to sign a fresh agreement for the purpose of settling my claim fee/pending dues, which was due from 01/01/2015 to 13/03/2015.
.............That the fact that even without having a contract signed I have been made working within the company premises by using the company facilities (like Laptop and other accessories) make it clear that the company had accepted me as a Consultant (FM) for the period from 01/01/2015 to 13/03/2015 which has already been completed and left by me. In this regard, what is left to do on the part of the company is to release my claim/pending dues for the above three months period which I have already completed and left with effect from 09/03/2015 (with one week notice period till 13/03/2015) without dragging me to any dispute.
In the above circumstances, I request you to kindly take notice of the facts pertaining to my request in the right perspective so as to avoid any complexities. It is further requested that since I CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 28/32 have submitted my resignation after satisfactory work in the company you may please release my all pending dues for the period 01/01/2015 to 13/03/2015 expeditiously."
9.23 Same is the position in email dated 27.04.2015.
Moreover though in the present suit he claimed that he was forced to work till midnight, whereas, in the above email he claimed to have worked till 08.30-09.00 p.m. Furthermore in none of the emails did he even once claim that he had orally agreed to work for the defendants on the asking of Mr. Manas Ranjan Behera as is claimed in the present suit nor has he alleged any torture or harassment by him in particular. In email dated 27.04.2015 he again talks about his studies and personal life being affected because of the work but the same cannot amount to harassment or torture much least with any malafide intention as is alleged. Though he talks about harassment but same is on account of non release of his consultancy fees/dues. The relevant portion of the email dated 27.04.2015 is reproduced hereunder:-
"It is a matter of grave concern that till date my rightful, justified consultant fee/ pending dues has not been paid which I earned with the highest degree of dedication, sincerity & hardwork. It is worth stating here that during my entire length of consultancy services i.e. wef 01-01-2014 to 13-03-2015; after reporting in office at morning hours; the entire day I used to work with the utmost sincerity, dedication & commitment. There have been instances when in view of work load, I left office 08:30-09:30 pm in night. All assigned work was always completed in scheduled time. Despite the fact, I was assigned the job of other consultant, I did my best & performed well but on the other side, my studies were being adversely affected. It was very painful to realize especially when I had been a good student during my entire student life. I still tried to manage but the water was going beyond head as I was being loaded with more & more work. I was under tremendous stress which in turn, was also affecting my personal life.
CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 29/32 Sir. I performed my duty with the utmost sincerity, passion, dedication, hard work & commitment to the work assigned even sometimes, at the cost of my personal life. Consequently, I had achieved many milestones in terms of performance in official work.
...........It is also not out of context to state that my parents are senior citizens & not earning. So, I am the sole bread earner for my family. Your action of not releasing is putting me & my family in financial distress. It is leading to snatching bread out of us. I do not know either EDCIL &/or its Officials (who are all marked in this e-mail) are to be held responsible, if anything happens to me &/or my family, on account of conditions arising out of my financial distress caused by non release of my consultancy fee."
9.24 Though in email dated 26.05.2015 he does speaks about malafide tactics of burdening him with undue and unjustified amount of work but nowhere he speaks about harassment or torture or having been worked in the office till midnight. The relevant portion of email dated 26.05.2015 is reproduced hereunder:-
"Point no.: 5 Your malafide tactics of over loading me with undue & unjustified amount of work which cannot be handled by a single person despite working till late evening hours, in fact, constrained me to leave the service which was duly communicated in my earlier e-mails dtd.: 23.02.2015, then in my resignation letter dtd.: 09.03.2015 and then in my e-mail dtd.: 27.04.2015.
Further, there was no agreement during the period 01.01.2015 to 13.03.2015; the question of breach of any obligation does not arise at all"
9.25 As regards the plaintiff's argument that the written statement was signed only by defendant no. 4 and not by the remaining defendants, suffice would be to say that no such objection was taken at the relevant time i.e. when the written CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 30/32 statement was filed on behalf of defendant no. 1 to 4, though signed by defendant no.4 only. Same is evident from proceedings dated 23.11.2016 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this court. In fact there was delay in filing the written statement and the said delay was condoned in view of no objection given by the plaintiff as is evident from proceedings dated 06.11.2017 conducted before the Ld. Predecessor of this court. Last but not the least the law is well settled that the plaintiff has to succeed on the strength of his own case and not based on the weakness of the case, if any, on the part of the defendants. Plaintiff must stand or fall on the strength of his own case. Therefore even if DW1 Sh. Devender Kumar Sharma was not duly authorized to depose on behalf of defendant no. 2, as was argued by the plaintiff, still the plaintiff had to prove his case which he miserably failed to do so.
9.26 Therefore plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his case regarding torture, harassment and suffering of mental or physical injury on account of said torture/harassment. As regards defendant no. 1, the allegations against him could not be even remotely substantiated by the plaintiff. Same is the position qua the remaining defendants. In fact against defendant no. 3 and 4 there are no allegations whatsoever of any nature. There was no occasion for them to be impleaded as a party to the present suit. The employment, contract was with defendant no. 2 which too expired on 31.12.2014 and thereafter the plaintiff worked with defendant no. 2 at his own peril. Nonetheless, though belatedly, but he was paid the dues. Though there was delay on the part of CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 31/32 the defendants to clear his dues but firstly there was no contractual obligation and secondly & most importantly he had settled the said dispute on 03.03.2016 before the Labour Commissioner and thus he has no right to re-agitate. Therefore issue no. 2 and 3 are decided against the plaintiff.
9.27 As far as issue no. 1 is concerned, as the matter before the Labour Commissioner was settled and there was no adjudication on merits, no question arises of the suit being barred by principles of resjudicata/section 11 CPC.
Relief
10. As issue no. 2 and 3 have been decided against the plaintiff, suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. I order accordingly.
11. Decree sheet be prepared in terms of judgment.
12. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court on 27th April 2023 (Gaurav Rao) ADJ-03/ New Delhi District Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
CS No. 58390/2016 Anil Kumar Babbar Vs. EdCIL (India) Limited & Ors. Pages 32/32