Karnataka High Court
Smt. B N Asha vs Dr G P Basavaraj on 5 December, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:50346
RFA No. 1692 of 2024
C/W RFA No. 1693 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1692 OF 2024 (RES-)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1693 OF 2024
IN RFA No. 1692/2024
BETWEEN:
SMT. B N ASHA
D/O LATE NARASIMHA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.252, I BLOCK, 3RD CROSS,
1ST STAGE PEENYA,
BENGALURU - 560 058.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S. VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
DR. G.P.BASAVARAJ
DEAD BY LRS
Digitally signed by
VEDAVATHI A K
Location: High
1. SRI. R. CHANDRASHEKAR
Court of Karnataka S/O DR. B. RAMASANJEEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
GENERAL SECRETARY,
MYSORE HINDI PRACHARA PARISHAD,
WORKING AT NO.58,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
SHIVANAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. R. KIRAN, AND
SRI. SATCHIDANANDA R. JOIS., ADVOCATES FOR C/R)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:50346
RFA No. 1692 of 2024
C/W RFA No. 1693 of 2024
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 CPC, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.04.2024 PASSED IN
OS.NO.795/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT
FOR DAMAGES.
IN RFA NO. 1693/2024
BETWEEN:
SMT. B.N.ASHA
D/O LATE NARASIMHA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.252, I BLOCK, 3RD CROSS,
1ST STAGE, PEENYA,
BENGALURU - 560 058.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S. VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
DR. G.P.BASAVARAJ
DEAD BY LRS
1. SRI. R. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O DR. B. RAMASANJEEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
GENERAL SECRETARY,
MYSORE HINDI PRACHARA PARISHAD,
WORKING AT NO.58.
WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
SHIVANAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. R. KIRAN, AND
SRI. SATCHIDANANDA R. JOIS, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 CPC, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.04.2024 PASSED
IN OS.NO.795/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY,
DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DAMAGES.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:50346
RFA No. 1692 of 2024
C/W RFA No. 1693 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
R.F.A. No.1692/2024 is filed by the plaintiff under Section 96 of CPC as against the judgment and decree passed by the passed by the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. No.795/2017 dated 06.04.2024, whereby the trial Court has decreed the counter claim of the defendant. Whereas, R.F.A. No.1693/2024 is filed by the very same plaintiff under Section 96 of CPC for dismissing the suit of the plaintiff in the very same suit dated 06.04.2024.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsels appearing for the parties.
3. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties is retained as before the trial Court.
4. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that she filed a suit seeking damages of Rs.50,000/- from the -4- NC: 2024:KHC:50346 RFA No. 1692 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1693 of 2024 defendant on the ground that she was working in the office of the respondent-defendant i.e. Hindi Prachara Parishad, for 17 years 10 months from 21.02.1999 to 09.12.2016, on monthly wages of ₹15,000/- and other benefits. There are more than 20 members working in the organization and the defendants have not complied with the various provisions of the labour legislation. The plaintiff had been removed from the post of office staff on 09.12.2016 without assigning any reasons and she has been removed from service intentionally. She has demanded the defendant to grant the lawful benefits, but they refused to grant. The defendant started harassing the plaintiff and she was pushed and dragged by the defendant. Ultimately, she was removed from service. Therefore, she lodged a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, State Women Commission, State Women Rights Commissioner. Later, she also filed a complaint to the Magistrate. The defendants used abusive words in front of co-workers, thereby she was subjected to mental torture as well as she suffered mentally and financially. The act of defendant caused the extreme damage to the plaintiff. She got issued legal notice to the defendant for paying damages.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:50346 RFA No. 1692 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1693 of 2024
5. On issuance of summons, the defendant appeared through the learned counsel by filing written statement. It is contended that the suit is not maintainable, the defendant is not liable to pay the damages and contended that the defendant is organisation conducting courses and exams to promote the National Language Hindi. On 09.12.2016, the plaintiff, without prior intimation or sanction of leave, remained unauthorizedly absent from work till date. She always used to come to office late. When a memo was issued, she gave evasive reply and thereafter, she stopped coming to the job. She filed unnecessary complaints to the police as well as to the Court. She made baseless allegations against the defendant. She raised industrial dispute in case bearing ID No.3/2017 on the file of Principal Labour Court, Bangalore for reinstatement and back wages with full continuity in service. The claim of plaintiff for damages is without any basis, highly imaginary and illegal. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
6. The defendant also filed a counter claim contending that the plaintiff was habitual late comer to the office. She has made reckless allegations against the defendant organization, -6- NC: 2024:KHC:50346 RFA No. 1692 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1693 of 2024 which is voluntary social organization carrying out public service. Due to harassment of the plaintiff, the smooth functioning of the defendant organization suffered. It is contended that, every year, there is more than 25,000 students appear annually for the exams conducted State-wide by the defendant's organization & the certificates issued by the defendant-organization are utilized throughout the nation & internationally as an additional qualification for candidates. Therefore, the defendant made a counter claim of Rs.75,000/- against the plaintiff.
7. Based upon the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following:-
Issues
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards damages from the defendants?
2. Whether the defendants prove that they are entitled for sum of Rs.75,000/- towards damages from the plaintiff?
3. What order or decree?-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:50346 RFA No. 1692 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1693 of 2024 Additional Issues
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants have used abusive words against her, harassed her mentally and physically and terminated her from the service?
2. Whether the defendants prove that defendant organisation is a voluntary social organisation having good reputation the plaintiff being the office staff, damaged the reputation of defendant organisation by filing false complaints and false cases and thereby caused damage which effected the smooth running of the defendant organisation?
3. Whether the counter claim of the defendants can be allowed?
8. To prove the case of the plaintiff, she got herself examined as P.W.1 and got marked the documents Exs.P.1 to P.10. On behalf of the defendants, P.A. holder of defendant got examined as D.W.1 and no documents were marked on their side.
9. On hearing the arguments, the trial Court answered issue No.1 and additional issue No.1 in the negative. Issue No.2, Addl. Issue Nos.2 and 3 were answered partly in the -8- NC: 2024:KHC:50346 RFA No. 1692 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1693 of 2024 Affirmative and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, and allowed the counter claim of the defendant. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has filed these two appeals.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has contended that the judgment of the trial court is not sustainable in law. The trial court has totally ignored the documentary and oral evidence of the plaintiff without any basis and accepted oral evidence of the defendant and allowed the counter claim. There are no documents to show that the smooth functioning of the organisation was troubled or destroyed. Mere mentioning in the written statement without any proof, the counter claim cannot be accepted. On the other hand, the plaintiff is able to prove that the defendant has troubled her and not allowed her to enter into the organisation and do her work. Illegal termination has been made on the plaintiff and therefore, industrial dispute raised by the plaintiff was allowed. Now she has been removed by the defendant and the appeal filed by the plaintiff is pending consideration. Such being the case, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for -9- NC: 2024:KHC:50346 RFA No. 1692 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1693 of 2024 allowing both the appeals and decree the suit of the plaintiff by rejecting the counter claim of the defendant.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent-defendant has supported the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court and contended that the complaint was filed by the appellant- plaintiff before the police as well as the Commissioner of Police. The plaintiff also filed a private complaint against the defendant which came to be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. where the High Court has categorically held that the industrial dispute has been converted into criminal case, which clearly shows that the plaintiff has unnecessarily dragged the defendant to the court by filing a false complaint and raising the industrial dispute. It is further contended that even then, there is no termination of the plaintiff. The plaintiff herself failed to appear for the job and subsequently, the defendant reinstated her. Accordingly, she has been reinstated and industrial dispute already raised has been disposed of by the Labour Court. Such being the case, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff based upon the main ground/observation at para 21 of the judgment. The trial Court has rightly decreed the counter claim of the defendant directing
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:50346 RFA No. 1692 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1693 of 2024 for payment of damage of Rs.50,000/- to be payable by the plaintiff to the defendant.
12. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the records.
13. The points that arise for consideration in these appeals are :
(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has tarnished the image of the plaintiff in the presence of the staff and other members of the office, and abused her in filthy language, and thereby, she has suffered the damage as claimed in the suit ?
(ii) Whether the defendant-organisation proves that because of the attitude of the plaintiff and filing of the complaint by the plaintiff as well as dragging the defendant to the Court, the smooth functioning of the defendant has been disturbed and thereby, financial loss has been caused to the defendant and hence, she is liable to pay damages in a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the defendant ?
(iii) Whether the judgment passed by the trial Court both in suit as well as counter claim calls for interference ?
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:50346 RFA No. 1692 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1693 of 2024
14. Perusal of the records reveals that it is not in dispute that the plaintiff was an employee of defendant - Mysore Hindi Prachara Parishad. The dispute arose between both the parties. As per the contention of defendant, the plaintiff said to be attending duty by coming to the office belatedly and the defendant said to be issued a memo for coming late to the office. The plaintiff said to be given explanation that because of construction of Metro at Bangalore, she was not able to come to the office in time. Subsequently, the dispute was aggravated where the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant before the police as per Ex.P.1 and also before the Commissioner of Police as per Ex.P.2. A complaint was also filed before the Women Commissioner, human Rights Commission as per Ex.P.3. Later, a complaint was filed before the Magistrate under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. as per Ex.P.4 and PCR has been registered. As per Ex.P.5, the sworn statement has been made by the plaintiff against the defendant. The learned Magistrate took cognizance against the respondent- defendant for the offences under Sections 354 and 506 of IPC and PCR has been converted into a criminal case against the defendant. Subsequently, the defendant approached this Court
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:50346 RFA No. 1692 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1693 of 2024 in Criminal Petition No.854/2018 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. where the Coordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 23.06.2023, has quashed the criminal proceedings. After quashing of the complaint, the plaintiff has not approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the order passed by the Co- ordinate Bench in the aforesaid criminal case, which has attained the finality.
15. Considering the documentary evidence at Exs.P.1 to P.6 and Ex.P.10 filed by the plaintiff against the defendant before the police as well as before the Court and also evidence of P.W.1 before the trial Court and also the order passed in Criminal Petition No.854/2018, the plaintiff has utterly failed to show that the defendant has abused her in filthy language in front of other employees and tarnished image of the plaintiff which caused the mental torture and financial loss.
16. That apart, P.W.1 has not examined any of the members or any employees of the defendant in support of her case to show that the defendant has abused her in filthy language which caused her mental torture and lead to financial loss. Of course, it is not in dispute that as per the industrial
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:50346 RFA No. 1692 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1693 of 2024 dispute in I.D. No.3/2017, though the issues were framed by the Industrial Tribunal in respect of the illegal termination of the plaintiff and voluntarily not appearing or the absence of the labour, both were negatived by the Industrial Tribunal. Such being the case, it cannot be said that the defendant has illegally terminated the plaintiff from the office from 09.12.2016. The Industrial Tribunal has already seized the matter and an appeal is pending consideration. Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant caused financial loss in order to claim the damages by the plaintiff.
17. On perusal of the judgment of the trial Court, at para No.21, where it was referred by the trial Court that the plaintiff was represented by the advocate, who is none other than the husband of plaintiff. During the course of trial, the learned counsel for the plaintiff used abusive words against the defence counsel and raised voice in the Court. In that regard, proceedings has been drawn before the court to initiate contempt, but at that stage, he offered unconditional apology. The said proceeding is noted by the court record and kept in the file.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:50346 RFA No. 1692 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1693 of 2024
18. Perusal of the record, admittedly, all the documents except the legal notice, complaint and FIR have been quashed by the court, and therefore, the question of tarnishing image and thereby suffering damage by the plaintiff, cannot be accepted. Therefore, I answer point No.1 in the negative as the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant abused and tarnished the image of the plaintiff and thereby, the defendant has to pay the damages to the plaintiff.
19. As regards the counter claim, the defendant said to be stated before the trial court that because of attitude of the plaintiff, the smooth functioning of the defendant-organisation has been destroyed. Except the oral evidence of D.W.1, there is no document produced by the defendant. There are no other witnesses or any other persons in the establishment or students or any candidates examined before the trial court in order to show that the smooth functioning of the defendant- organisation has been destroyed. As stated above, the trouble started when the plaintiff came to the office in the late hours and defendant questioned and issued memo. Thereafter, the matter was aggravated, which clearly shows that the plaintiff
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:50346 RFA No. 1692 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1693 of 2024 and the defendant blamed each other. Whether the plaintiff was not allowed to come to the office or the plaintiff herself refused to go to office, is already discussed in the industrial dispute case. Therefore, the complaint filed by the plaintiff was quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and that was not challenged by the plaintiff before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, itself is not a ground to say that the plaintiff has damaged the image of the defendant and smooth functioning of the defendant, in order to pay damage to the defendant. Once the dispute arose between the parties, they will approach the court for justice. Merely, the plaintiff filed complaint and the aforesaid suit against the defendant and raised industrial dispute, is not a ground to show that the plaintiff is liable to pay damages. Therefore, without any document allowing the counter claim, is not correct. Therefore, the defendant has also failed to prove that the plaintiff has tarnished the image of the defendant and thereby, the plaintiff is liable to pay the damage. Hence, I answer point No.2 in the negative.
20. Though the trial court has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, but it has allowed the counter claim of the defendant stating at para No.21 of the judgment that the
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:50346 RFA No. 1692 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1693 of 2024 husband of the plaintiff abused the defendant's counsel and raised voice in the Court. Proceedings were drawn before the court to initiate contempt and later the plaintiff's counsel (husband) offered unconditional apology. Therefore, the question of allowing the counter claim is not correct. Therefore, the order of allowing the counter claim requires to be set aside..
21. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
(i) The appeal in R.F.A No.1692/2024 is allowed.
(ii) R.F.A. No.1693/2024 is dismissed.
(iii) The counter claim filed by the defendant is set aside.
(iv) The parties are bound by the decision in the judgment passed by the Labour Court.
(v) The amount that was recovered by the defendant is ordered to be refunded to the plaintiff/appellant.
Sd/-
(K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE CS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50 CT:SK