Delhi District Court
Manoj Bhatia vs M/S Alankit Healthcare Tpa Ltd on 23 December, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MR. SUNIL BENIWAL,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE -02, (CENTRAL), DELHI
Old Case no. 130/16
CS No. 16629/16
Manoj Bhatia
S/o Late Sh. O.P Bhatia
R/o G-26/432, Sector-3,
Rohini, Delhi-110085.
........... Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Alankit Healthcare TPA Ltd.
(Through its Managing Director)
Registered office at: 205-208, Anarkali
Complex, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055
......... Defendant
Date of Institution of Suit : 17.03.2016
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 23.12.2019
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, INJUNCTION AND RECOVERY OF
RS.7,58,970/- ALONGWITH INTEREST @ 18% P.A.
This is the judgment of case titled as Manoj Bhatia vs M/s
Alankit Healthcare TPA Ltd. through its Managing Director. Plaintiff filed
this suit for declaration, injunction and recovery of Rs.7,58,970/- alongwith
interest @ 18% per annum. Relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the
CS No. 16629/16 Manoj Bhatia vs M/s Alankit Healthcare TPA Ltd. 1/13
present case as stated in the plaint are as follows :-
1 That plaintiff was employee of the defendant at the post of
Manager Corporate relations and was drawing the salary of Rs.40,064/- per
month. Defendant company was satisfied with the services of the plaintiff.
Plaintiff was also assigned clerical jobs during the said tenure. On
07.10.2013 plaintiff demanded salary for the month of September 2013 but
he was directed to go on indefinite leave without any valid reason. Later-on,
he was even stopped from entering the office by the security staff and finally
on 10.10.2013 his services were terminated by the defendant without
assigning any reason and without serving any notice. It is also pertinent to
mention that the plaintiff has not been paid the salary for the month of
September 2013 and December 2013. Moreover, he was also not issued any
appointment letter by the defendant. Plaintiff is without any job because of
illegal termination of his services by the defendant and this act of the
defendant has caused financial loss of reputation and mental agony which
cannot be compensated in any manner. Plaintiff worked as an agent with
Bharti Axa General Insurance for a period of five months and now again he
is unemployed. Plaintiff is 46 years of age and it is very difficult to search
for a new job at this age. In the compelling circumstances, plaintiff filed a
complaint before the Labour Commissioner, Labour Court Delhi but the
plaintiff was not aware that he was pursuing a wrong remedy and later on
plaintiff withdrew the said complaint with the permission of the Labour
CS No. 16629/16 Manoj Bhatia vs M/s Alankit Healthcare TPA Ltd. 2/13
Court with liberty to file fresh case in appropriate court of law. Plaintiff had
no other remedy except to file the present suit. Plaintiff served a legal notice
dated 18.09.2014 upon the defendant but all was futile. The plaintiff is
entitled for the following amount:-
i) Salary for the month of September 2013 i.e. Rs.40,064/- alongwith
interest @ 18% p.a.
ii) Salary for the period 01.01.2013 to 09.10.2013 i.e. Rs.11,631/-
iii) Gratuity for six years (Jan 2008 to October 2013) i.e. Rs.84,946/-
iv) Compensation as the plaintiff could not find a job for a period from
10.10.2013 to 31.10.2015 due to the illegal and arbitrary termination i.e.
salary @ Rs.40,064/- coming to the tune of Rs.5,69,329/-
v) Plaintiff is also entitled for compensation for the mental agony and
pain suffered because of the illegal acts of the defendant.
2 Cause of action arose on 10.10.2013 when services of the
plaintiff were terminated. It further arose on 18.09.2014 when plaintiff
served a legal notice upon the defendant for the illegal acts of the defendant.
It is therefore prayed that the court be pleased to:
a. pass a decree of declaration thereby declaring the termination order of
the plaintiff dated 10.10.2013 as null and void
b. pass a decree of permanent mandatory injunction thereby directing the
defendant company to reinstate the plaintiff in their company with full
respect, dignity and benefits
CS No. 16629/16 Manoj Bhatia vs M/s Alankit Healthcare TPA Ltd. 3/13
c. pass a decree of recovery of Rs.7,58,970/- alongwith interest @ 18%
per annum pendentelite till its realization and also compensation for mental
tension and pain which the court deems fit in the present case and plaintiff
undertakes to pay the court fees for this purpose.
Relevant facts as stated in the written statement are as follows:-
3 That the present suit is a malicious suit. Suit should be rejected
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Plaintiff is guilty of misrepresentation of facts
and non-disclosure of material facts. Plaintiff has not come to this court with
clean hands and has suppressed material facts. It has been held in the
judgment of S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath that:
"The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the
parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are
constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being
abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other
unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a
convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no
hesitation to say that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no
right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of
the litigation."
4 Plaintiff is not entitled to any equitable relief as he is guilty of
suppression of material facts from this court. There is no privity of contract
CS No. 16629/16 Manoj Bhatia vs M/s Alankit Healthcare TPA Ltd. 4/13
between the plaintiff and the defendant company and therefore plaintiff has
no right to seek the relief as prayed for. There is no document partaking the
character of employment contract which has been annexed by the plaintiff
and therefore, the relationship of employer and employee as claimed by the
plaintiff under any contract is not conceded as there were no terms and
conditions governing this relationship. Plaintiff suppressed the material fact
that defendant had lodged a police complaint on 19.12.2013 against two of
its ex-employees including the plaintiff, copy of which bearing DD No. 53-B
is marked as Annexure-P/1. The plaintiff has concealed that the plaintiff
alongwith the then employee Sunil Kumar against whom complaint was
made had extended his apology of his wrong doings and had written a
compromise to the fact that they shall not raise any claim against the
defendant company, based on which the police had consigned the complaint.
The plaintiff has concealed the fact that he had voluntarily abandoned his
job in the defendant company and secretly shifted his residence. The law
seeks a cogent and sustainable proof in support of any amount of damages in
pursuance of Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act and documentary proof
in support thereof to support the claim of damages which the plaintiff has
failed to adduce. Plaintiff is indulging into blackmailing by filing the present
plaint in order to extort money from the defendant. No cause of action has
ever arisen in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff is estopped from filing the
present suit by their own acts, conducts, latches etc.
CS No. 16629/16 Manoj Bhatia vs M/s Alankit Healthcare TPA Ltd. 5/13
Brief Facts:-
5 That Mr. Shanti Lal is the authorized representative of defendant and has been authorized to defend the present suit. Board of resolution is annexed. That right from the beginning, the plaintiff had certain negative traits as an employee and defendant was never satisfied with the conduct of the plaintiff. Suddenly on October 6 th 2013, plaintiff without any information voluntarily abandoned his employment without seeking the leave of the defendant and also without seeking any NOC as part of the exit formalities. A notice dated 10.10.2013 was sent to the plaintiff by defendant company but the same remained unserved as the plaintiff had malafidely shifted his residence in secret. Plaintiff filed a complaint before the Labour Commissioner where defendant admitted that the plaintiff was at the post of Manager Corporate Relations but meanwhile plaintiff had projected himself to be merely a clerk and this plea of the plaintiff was rejected alongwith the complaint on 18.06.2014 by the Labour Commissioner. Plaintiff sent a notice dated 18.09.2014 but was not replied to being frivolous and false.
Parawise reply:-
6 It is wrong and denied that defendant was fully satisfied with services of plaintiff. It is denied that on 07.10.2013 the plaintiff demanded his salary for the month of September 2013 but was directed to go on indefinite leave without any valid reason. It is denied that plaintiff was stopped from entering the office of the defendant by the security staff. It is CS No. 16629/16 Manoj Bhatia vs M/s Alankit Healthcare TPA Ltd. 6/13 denied that on 10.10.2013 plaintiff was informed that his services then terminated without assigning any cogent reason and without serving any notice upon the plaintiff. It is denied that plaintiff has not been paid salary for the month of September 2013 and December 2013. No dues are pending on the defendant company that have to be paid to the plaintiff. It is denied that plaintiff is entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for. It is therefore prayed that suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with exemplary costs and same be awarded in favour of the defendant.
Facts as stated in the replication of the plaintiff necessary for disposal of the suit are as follows:-
7 It is submitted that the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath cited as (1994) 1 SCC 1 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is denied that plaintiff had suppressed material fact that defendant company had lodged a police complaint on 19.12.2013 against two of its ex-employees including the plaintiff, a copy of which bearing no. DD 53-B as annexure-P/1. It is denied that plaintiff had extended their apology for their wrong doings and had written a compromise to this effect that they shall not raise any claim against the defendant company. It is denied that a notice dated 10.10.2013 was sent to the plaintiff by the defendant company but the same remained unserved because the plaintiff had secretly with malafide intentions shifted his residence. In the remaining replication, the plaintiff has simply denied all the CS No. 16629/16 Manoj Bhatia vs M/s Alankit Healthcare TPA Ltd. 7/13 allegations and averments made by the defendant in its written statement which are contrary to the case of the plaintiff to be false.
8 Following issues were framed on 24.11.2016 by the court on the basis of the pleadings:-
1 Whether there is concealment of material facts by the plaintiff who has not disclosed actual facts regarding his transfer and misbehaviour with senior officers? OPD 2 Whether there is no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration as asked for in the plaint? OPP 4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery as asked for in the plaint? If yes, the interest thereof? OPP 5 Relief.
9 Plaintiff examined himself by way of evidence affidavit and reiterated the contents of his plaint to be true. He filed and relied upon Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/13. Right of the defendant to cross examine this witness was closed when the defendant failed to avail his right despite opportunity being granted. Documents Ex.PW1/1 (colly), Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/4 (colly) were seen and returned as originals.
10 Ex.PW1/2 is the photocopy of ID Card of the plaintiff issued by the defendant company as per which plaintiff was employee no. 3039. CS No. 16629/16 Manoj Bhatia vs M/s Alankit Healthcare TPA Ltd. 8/13 11 Ex.PW1/3 is the summary of salary slips of the plaintiff from the month of February 2008 to August 2013.
12 Salary slips from February 2008 to August 2013 are collectively Ex.PW1/4 except the salary slips for the month of May 2008, January 2010, April 2011, May 2011, December 2011 and January 2012 which were not traceable at the time of filing of the affidavit.
13 No evidence was led by the defendant despite opportunity being granted. Now I shall proceed to determine the issues that were framed.
14 For the sake of convenience, the court is deciding all the four issues together.
Issue No.1: Whether there is concealment of material facts by the plaintiff who has not disclosed actual facts regarding his transfer and misbehaviour with senior officers? OPD Issue No.2: Whether there is no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD Issue No.3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration as asked for in the plaint? OPP And Issue No.4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery as asked for in the plaint? If yes, the interest thereof? OPP CS No. 16629/16 Manoj Bhatia vs M/s Alankit Healthcare TPA Ltd. 9/13 15 Case in detail has already been discussed above. Plaintiff examined himself in evidence affidavit by way of examination in chief. Despite opportunity being granted, plaintiff PW1 was not cross examined by the defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was employed with defendant company on salary basis including perks. It is further case of the plaintiff that he was terminated illegally and without giving any opportunity of being heard and without following proper procedure which led to financial loss as well as loss of reputation to the plaintiff. It is further case of the plaintiff that he was illegally terminated by the defendant company at the age of 46 years without assigning any reasons because of which plaintiff had to face lot of difficulty. As against this, defendant has admitted that plaintiff was an employee of the defendant company. The only defence that the defendant has taken in its written statement is that plaintiff was an unruly and cantankerous employee who used to show subordination. It is further the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff has come to this court with unclean hands and has suppressed material facts as complaint was lodged by the defendant against the plaintiff and ex-employee Mr. Sunil Kumar which complaint was compromised by the plaintiff and the said Mr. Sunil Kumar with an undertaking that no claim shall be raised by the plaintiff against the defendant company. It is the contention of the defendant that plaintiff has concealed this material fact and therefore not entitled to the equitable relief of declaration. But the defendant has failed to prove this fact that such a CS No. 16629/16 Manoj Bhatia vs M/s Alankit Healthcare TPA Ltd. 10/13 complaint was filed by the defendant company against the plaintiff which was acted upon by the police. The DD no 53B has been mentioned on the alleged complaint filed by the defendant company but no such alleged DD has been proved by the defendant. The defendant has also failed to prove that plaintiff entered into a compromise with the defendant whereby the plaintiff promised not to raise any claim against the defendant company. Evidence of the plaintiff has gone unchallenged and unrebutted. Therefore, the defendant has failed to prove that plaintiff is guilty of concealment of material facts which may affect the outcome of the present case. Defendant has also failed to prove that plaintiff does not have any valid cause of action to file the present suit. On the other hand, plaintiff has successfully proved that he was illegally and unjustifiably terminated from the defendant company. Plaintiff has also proved that he was never given an opportunity of being heard and no procedure known to law has been followed in terminating his services from the defendant company. Companies and corporations like these cannot be allowed to run haywire with the jobs of people and security of tenure of the public at large without assigning justifiable reasons for the same. Plaintiff was a 46 years old citizen when he was so illegally terminated by his employer without any valid justified or proper procedure being followed. The defendant company claimed that the plaintiff was never fired from employment by the defendant but admittedly even as per own case of the defendant there is no exit interview also that the CS No. 16629/16 Manoj Bhatia vs M/s Alankit Healthcare TPA Ltd. 11/13 plaintiff left the employment of the defendant voluntarily on his own free will and without any coercion. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not resigned from the defendant company. It appears that even the police complaint was made by the defendant company to pressurize the plaintiff into submitting his rights which is a misuse of the machinery of the police which is funded by the taxpayer citizens. Any company or corporation should not be allowed to get away with playing with the lives of the citizens of the country. If the plaintiff was infact guilty of such misconduct and mis-behaviour with senior officers as alleged, even then proper procedure should have been followed by the defendant company and he should have been terminated from his job by following a just and reasonable procedure instead of creating circumstances where the plaintiff is unable to have recourse to any lawful remedy. In the opinion of the court, the plaintiff has successfully proved that he was fired illegally and without any just cause. Plaintiff has also proved that he is entitled to recovery as asked for in the plaint in the form of his salary as well as gratuity. Plaintiff is also entitled to compensation as he could not get a job for the period from 10.10.2013 to 31.10.2015 because of the illegal and arbitrary termination.
Relief:-
In view of the above discussions and observations, suit of the plaintiff is decreed for the amount of Rs.40,064/- + Rs.11631/- + Rs.84,946/- + Rs.5,69,329/- after lawful deductibles in the form of taxes and such as per CS No. 16629/16 Manoj Bhatia vs M/s Alankit Healthcare TPA Ltd. 12/13 his last encashed salary slip and this amount will be treated as the principal amount + interest of 9% per annum upon the amount found due as stated above. The defendant shall be entitled to deduct all the deductibles as per law in the form of taxes and such as per the last salary slip paid to the plaintiff.
Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to record room.Digitally signed by
SUNIL SUNIL BENIWAL
Announced in the open Court on BENIWAL Date: 2019.12.24
16:45:18 +0530
23rd day of December, 2019 (SUNIL BENIWAL)
ADJ-02, Central,THC/Delhi
CS No. 16629/16 Manoj Bhatia vs M/s Alankit Healthcare TPA Ltd. 13/13