Delhi High Court - Orders
Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd & Anr vs Aditya Kishore on 4 March, 2022
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~9 (2022 Cause List)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 1602/2019 & CM APPLs. 48483/2019, 11122/2022
SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS
PVT LTD & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sandeep Grover, Mr. Aditya
Nayyar, Mr. Tarang Agarwal,
Advocates (Mobile No.
9810649994).
versus
ADITYA KISHORE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anunaya Mehta and
Mr. Vinayak Thakur, Advocates
(Mobile No. 9013008939).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 04.03.2022 The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through hybrid mode [physical and virtual hearing].
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against an order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge-04, New Delhi, Patiala House Courts in CS No. 915/2018 [Aditya Kishore vs. Samsung India Electronics PVT. Ltd. & Ors.]. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent herein, i.e. the plaintiff in the suit ["the plaintiff"], under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ["CPC"], seeking production of certain documents by the petitioners herein, i.e. the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit ["the defendants"].
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed CM (M) 1602/2019 Page 1 of 8 By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:07.03.2022 11:06:192. The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant No. 1-Company. He has filed the suit for recovery of money and other reliefs alleging illegal termination. It is the case of the plaintiff that he made certain whistleblowing complaints, which resulted in his termination on 29.03.2018.
3. In the written statement filed by the defendants, the defendants have averred that the termination of the plaintiff was in terms of the contract between the parties, and had nothing to do with the complaints made by him. However, the defendants have also made certain averments relating to complaints against the plaintiff and of his misconduct during the period of employment. Such averments can be found inter alia in paragraphs 5 and 9 (preliminary objections) and paragraph 20 (reply on merits) in the written statement.
4. The plaintiff thereafter filed an application under Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC, seeking disclosure of the following documents:-
"a) Original Performance evaluation records of the Plaintiff lying with Defendants for last 10 years including salary slips and Increment/Promotion letters.
b) Original Complaints against Plaintiff proving non-
performance, lethargy, non-execution of duties, non- compliance of company policies as alleged by the Defendants.
c) Original Defendant Company's Whistle Blowing Policy.
d) Original Details of whistle blowing E-mails along with proofs and attachments sent by the Plaintiff to HQ Audit and Compliance Team of the Defendants on 29th March, 2018.
e) Original Defendant Company's service rule, referred many times In Written Statement by Defendants.
f) Original Documentary proof of alleged data theft or Signature Not Verified Digitally signed CM (M) 1602/2019 Page 2 of 8 By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:07.03.2022 11:06:19 alleged illegitimate activities by Plaintiff during his decade long tenure with the Defendant Company.
g) Original Documentary evidences of the complaints made by the sub ordinates/Team of the Plaintiff as alleged by the Defendant Company In Its Written Statement.
h) Original Defendant Company's policy and criteria of making an HODs.
i) Original Defendant Company's Exit Policy and procedure for full & final settlement of accounts as well as Original Exit Interview of the Plaintiff.
j) Original Defendant Company compensation policy Including core-staff selection and core-staff bonus."
5. The application was resisted by the defendants on the ground that it results in a roving and fishing inquiry, and that the documents are not relevant to the adjudication of the case.
6. The Trial Court, by the impugned order, allowed the application, finding that the plaintiff's performance, misconduct and complaints against him were pleaded by the defendants, and the documents sought by the plaintiff were, therefore, relevant.
7. On the first date of hearing in this petition, i.e. 08.11.2019, the defendants submitted before the Court that the termination of the plaintiff was based purely on the contract of employment and not upon any complaints received against him. The defendants submitted that they do not wish to press the defence relating to the complaints against the plaintiff in the written statement.
8. Subsequently, I am informed by Mr. Sandeep Grover, learned counsel for the defendants, and Mr. Anunaya Mehta, learned counsel for the plaintiff, that issues have been framed by the Trial Court but evidence has not yet commenced. They refer me to the direction given by this Signature Not Verified Digitally signed CM (M) 1602/2019 Page 3 of 8 By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:07.03.2022 11:06:19 Court on 13.03.2020 that the hearings in the suit be deferred beyond the dates fixed by this Court.
9. The defendants have now filed an application before this Court, i.e. CM APPL. 11122/2022, stating that they wish to carry out certain amendments in the written statement, in line with the statement made to this Court on 08.11.2019.
10. Mr. Mehta resists the amendment on the ground that the case taken by the defendants in the original written statement supports the plaintiff's plea of unlawful termination. It is Mr. Mehta's submission that the defendant No. 1-Company is bound by Sections 177(9) and (10) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with the applicable provisions of the Companies (Meetings of Board and its Powers) Rules, 2014, under which a whistleblower is entitled to protection against victimisation. He submits that, by virtue of the proposed amendments, the defendants are attempting to obscure the plaintiff's case that the termination was consequent upon the complaint made by him.
11. Mr. Grover disputes the applicability of the said provisions to the defendant No. 1-Company. In addition, he points out that, in CM APPL. 11122/2022, the defendants have clearly stated their position with regard to each of the documents with which the application is concerned. As far as the documents enumerated at serial Nos. (b), (f) and (g) above are concerned, the defendants contend that the relevancy of these documents would not survive the amendment of the written statement in the terms proposed by the defendants. As far as the other documents are concerned, the defendants have indicated grounds partially resisting production before the Trial Court as, according to the defendants, the documents in Signature Not Verified Digitally signed CM (M) 1602/2019 Page 4 of 8 By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:07.03.2022 11:06:19 the form sought are either not available or do not exist.
12. As far as the order of the Trial Court is concerned, I am of the view that it does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity so as to invite the interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, on the basis of the written statement, as presently filed by the defendants. The Trial Court has taken a view based upon a reading of the written statement that, the documents are necessary for the proper adjudication of the case, and has also noted that in the reply to the application, the defendants have not denied that the documents are in their possession and control. The exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court would be justified only if such a finding is based on a lack of jurisdiction or a complete misreading of the material before the Court. In view of the contentions in the written statement mentioned above, no such conclusion can be drawn in this case.
13. However, the matter relating to amendment of the written statement is required to be considered by the Trial Court, in the event the defendants make an application in this regard. As far as the documents enumerated at serial Nos. (b), (f) and (g) are concerned, the decision on whether those documents are required to be disclosed can be revisited by the Trial Court after taking a decision on the application for amendment, if it is allowed, wholly or in part.
14. As far as the remaining documents are concerned, it is not the case of the defendants that their disclosure would be affected by the proposed amendment. The defendants' contention before this Court relates instead to the fact that some of the documents, [like the whistleblowing policy, service rules, head of department policy and the specific compensation Signature Not Verified Digitally signed CM (M) 1602/2019 Page 5 of 8 By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:07.03.2022 11:06:19 policy] are not in existence in the defendant No. 1-Company at all. As far as the yearly appraisals of the plaintiff are concerned, the defendants claim to have the yearly appraisals only for the years 2015 to 2017. The document at serial No. (d) relates to an email sent by the plaintiff alongwith attachments from the server of the defendants during the period of his employment. It is the plaintiff's case that he does not have an electronic version of the said document or its attachments, and only has a printout [that too, without attachments] in respect of which he is unable to provide a certificate under Section 65B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the application filed by the defendants before this Court, the plea taken is only that the document is in the possession of the plaintiff and has been placed on record with the plaint. As the availability and possession of the document is not denied by the defendants and does appear to be relevant to the adjudication of the case, the defendants are required to produce the said document also.
15. For the reasons aforesaid, it is directed as follows:-
a. The defendants will disclose the documents directed by the Trial Court, except those mentioned at serial Nos. (b), (f) and
(g), on the next date of hearing before the Trial Court. In the event, any of the said documents are not disclosed, for example, on the ground that they do not exist, the defendants will state the grounds on affidavit and it is open to the Trial Court to proceed further in that regard, in accordance with law.
b. The defendants have, in CM APPL. 11122/2022 filed before this Court, indicated that they have a Global Code of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed CM (M) 1602/2019 Page 6 of 8 By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:07.03.2022 11:06:19 Conduct Policy (as opposed to a whistleblowing policy), and certain specific policies and rules regarding leave, travel, medical reimbursement etc. (as opposed to service rules). Those will be produced alongwith the documents disclosed on the next date of hearing before the Trial Court, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties regarding the documents sought by the plaintiff. c. In the event the defendants wish to amend the written statement, they will make an application before the Trial Court in this regard on or before the next date of hearing in the Trial Court, which will be adjudicated on its own merits. The merits of the application for amendment are a matter for the Trial Court to decide, and this Court is not required to make any comment thereupon.
d. If such an application is made and the amendments sought by the defendants are allowed, wholly or in part, the Trial Court will reconsider whether the documents sought at serial Nos. (b), (f) and (g) are required to be disclosed or not. If no such application is made on the next date of hearing before the Trial Court, or the application comes to be dismissed, the defendants will disclose the documents at serial Nos. (b), (f),
(g) on the date fixed by the Trial Court for the purpose. In the event, any of the said documents are not disclosed, for example, on the ground that they do not exist, the defendants will state the grounds on affidavit and it is open to the Trial Court to proceed further in that regard, in accordance with Signature Not Verified Digitally signed CM (M) 1602/2019 Page 7 of 8 By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:07.03.2022 11:06:19 law.
16. The petition, alongwith the pending applications, is disposed of in these terms, but without any order of costs.
PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 4, 2022 „vp‟/ Signature Not Verified Digitally signed CM (M) 1602/2019 Page 8 of 8 By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:07.03.2022 11:06:19