Delhi District Court
Sukhminder Singh Sidana vs Sandeep Kalhan on 24 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-01, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ-1635/2017
Sh. Sukhminder Singh Sidana
S/o S. Himmat Jit singh Sidana,
R/o 129, Vinoba Puri,
Lajpat Nagar-II,
New Delhi-110024. ....... Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Sh. Sandeep Kalhan
Director
Houston Technologies Ltd.
5th Floor, Splendour Forum
Unit Nos.501-511, Plot No.3,
Jasola District Centre,
New Delhi-110025.
2. Sh. Vikram Bhatia
Director
Houston Technologies Ltd.
5th Floor, Splendour Forum
Unit Nos.501-511, Plot No.3,
Jasola District Centre,
New Delhi-110025.
3. Houston Technologies Ltd.
5th Floor, Splendour Forum
Unit Nos.501-511, Plot No.3,
Jasola District Centre,
New Delhi-110025. ...... Defendants
Date of Institution : 02.11.2017
Date of Reserving judgment : 20.01.2025
Date of Judgment : 24.01.2025
CS DJ-1635/2017 Sukhminder Singh Sidana Vs. Sandeep Kalhan & Ors. Pg. 1 of 23
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2025.01.28
15:17:06
+0530
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by plaintiff for recovery of Rs.14 lacs which are due for unpaid salary for the period of October 2014 till April 2015.
Plaintiff's case
2. The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff was appointed with the defendant no.3 company vide Appointment Letter dated 04.04.2014 on annual consideration of Rs.24 lacs. Prior to the issue of the said appointment letter, the plaintiff was working with defendant company from 01.11.2014 as a Senior Consultant. It is further submitted that from October 2014, the defendant no.3 has not paid any salary to the plaintiff despite him working for such period. It is further submitted that as the plaintiff was not getting salary for the months of October 2014 to April 2015, he resigned in the month April 2015. It is further stated that in the Relieving Letter dated 01.05.2015 it is stated that the plaintiff is sincere and hardworking and he was an efficient and diligent employee and his performance was good. Despite appreciation of work performance of plaintiff, defendant no.3 company did not pay amount for salary for the period from October 2014 to April 2015. As such, the plaintiff is entitled to an amount of Rs.14 lacs from defendants. Defendants no.1 & 2 being Directors are also liable to pay the said amount. On these grounds, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.14 lacs along with interest @24% per annum.
CS DJ-1635/2017 Sukhminder Singh Sidana Vs. Sandeep Kalhan & Ors. Pg. 2 of 23
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2025.01.28
15:17:14
+0530
Written Statement:
3. Summons of the suit were issued to defendants who appeared and filed their collective Written Statement as per which the following preliminary objections were taken :
A) That the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. B) That the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and defendants no.1 and 2 are Directors of defendant no.3 company. C) That the suit is barred u/s 41(h) of Specific Relief Act.
4. On merits, the defendants have stated that prior to being appointed vide Appointment Letter dated 04.04.2014 at annual package of Rs.24 lacs, the plaintiff was working on retainership basis with defendant no.3 company for monthly consideration of Rs.1 lac vide letter dated 29.10.2013. It is further stated that this is a factual fact which has been concealed by the plaintiff. On the substance of the case, it is stated that the plaintiff remained unauthorizedly absent from work from 01.09.2014 and had not worked with the defendants for the period from October 2014 till 30.04.2015. As such, it is the case of the defendants that due to plaintiff absconding from services of the defendant no.3 company, his services got automatically terminated after seven days of such abstinence, as per the Appointment Letter dated 04.04.2015.
CS DJ-1635/2017 Sukhminder Singh Sidana Vs. Sandeep Kalhan & Ors. Pg. 3 of 23 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA Date: BHATIA 2025.01.28 15:17:20 +0530 Replication:
5. The plaintiff has filed his replication and reiterated the facts of the case. In the replication, it is stated that defendant no.3 had deducted TDS from the salary of the plaintiff for the period 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 and the same is reflected in Form 16 dated 27.08.2015, sent to the plaintiff by defendant no.3 company vide email dated 28.08.2015. It is further submitted that this shows that plaintiff had worked with the defendant no.3 company for the whole financial year 2014-2015 and the liability of defendants no.1 & 2 is reiterated. The factual matrix as pointed out by defendants as to the plaintiff absconding the work is denied and the plaintiff has reiterated that the plaintiff worked with defendant company till 30.04.2015.
Issues:
6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 22.02.2019, the following issues were framed:
A) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of recovery of amount, as prayed for? OPP B) If the issue No.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff, whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP C) Whether the plaintiff has remained unauthorized absent from work from 02.09.2014 and has not worked with the defendants from 01.10.2014 till 30.04.2015?OPDs D) Whether the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands?OPDs CS DJ-1635/2017 Sukhminder Singh Sidana Vs. Sandeep Kalhan & Ors. Pg. 4 of 23 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA Date: BHATIA 2025.01.28 15:17:28 +0530 E) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? OPDs F) Whether the suit is barred u/s 41(h) of Specific Relief Act?
OPDs G) Relief.
7. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for plaintiff's evidence.
8. In support of his case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and relied upon the following documents.
SL. NO. Description of document Exhibit
1 Copy of Appointment Letter. Ex.PW1/1
2 Copy of Relieving Letter Ex.PW1/2
3 Copy of notice along with postal Ex.PW1/3
receipts. (colly)
4 Copy of Form 16 issued by Mark A
defendant no.3 company.
5 Email dated 31.08.2015. Mark B
6 Challan for tax deduction. Mark C
7 Copy of Written Statement filed by Mark D
the company.
8 Copy of Resignation Letter. Mark E
9. During his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for defendants, the plaintiff admitted that he had not filed any certificate with respect to his educational qualification and experience certificate along with plaint. He stated that his job was to handle certain projects towards completion and also handle few more responsibilities as per instructions of defendant no.1 from time to time and he was assigned both duties i.e. office work and field work. He deposed that he joined as Senior Consultant in November 2013. He denied that he CS DJ-1635/2017 Sukhminder Singh Sidana Vs. Sandeep Kalhan & Ors. Pg. 5 of 23 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA Date: BHATIA 2025.01.28 15:17:35 +0530 did not join the duties as per requirements of appointment letter. He denied that he did not submit his last employer salary slip as per requirement. He further denied that he had not submitted his last salary certificate and experience certificate of the previous company with the defendant company. He further denied that he did not perform his duties sincerely and was not punctual during the working hours. He further denied that during the working hours of the defendant no.3 company, he used to do his own private work.
10.During his further cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for defendants, he admitted that he was appointed as Sales Consultant on retainer- ship basis by the defendant no.3 company on a fixed monthly fee of Rs.1 lac vide letter dated 29.10.2013, Ex.PW1/DA. He denied that he had deliberately suppressed the said letter. He denied that after joining the defendant no.3 company on retainer-ship basis, he had assured to bring business to the company and also assured to promote and sell the company services to the prospective clients and generate revenue for the company. He further denied that on his failure to do so, the defendant no.3 company suffered losses. He further denied that MD of the defendant no.3 company did not offer him regular appointment as Senior Consultant in the month of April 2014 or that he was not appreciated for his performance. He further denied that he remained unauthorizedly absent from his duties during his probation period and therefore, he left the defendant no.3 company from 02.09.2014 without giving any prior notice. He denied that he had not worked with the defendant no.3 company from 02.09.2014 to April 2015 or that Relieving Letter, Ex.PW1/2 is CS DJ-1635/2017 Sukhminder Singh Sidana Vs. Sandeep Kalhan & Ors. Pg. 6 of 23 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA Date: BHATIA 2025.01.28 15:17:42 +0530 a forged letter. He further denied that he has filed the present suit in connivance with one Rajeev Ranjan against the defendants.
11.Thereafter, plaintiff's evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for defendant's evidence.
12.In support of their case, the defendants have examined Sh. Sandeep Kalhan as DW1 and Ms. Manisha Khanna, HR Head as DW2.
13.In his testimony, DW1 has relied upon the following documents:
SL. NO. DOCUMENTS EXHIBIT
1 Authority Letter issued by Ex.DW1/1
defendant no.3 in favour of
DW1.
2 Appointment Letter dated Ex.DW1/2
29.10.2013 (Already exhibited
as Ex.DW1/DA).
14.In his cross-examination by Sh. Inderbir Singh, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, he stated that he is CEO of the defendant no.3 company since the year 2012. He further stated that the plaintiff was employed initially as Sales Consultant and later on regularized to Senior Sales Consultant in April 2014. He further stated that plaintiff joined the company in October 2013 and worked till 01.09.2014. He deposed that Relieving Letter dated 01.05.2015 was not issued to the plaintiff by the defendant no.3 company and that the stamp on the said letter appears genuine but is not of the defendant company. He stated that Ms. Sarita Kumari was an employee of the company but he could not recollect the duration of CS DJ-1635/2017 Sukhminder Singh Sidana Vs. Sandeep Kalhan & Ors. Pg. 7 of 23 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA Date: BHATIA 2025.01.28 15:17:48 +0530 her tenure with the company. He further stated that TDS was deducted for the entire tenure the plaintiff worked with the defendant no.3 company. He further stated that stamp and signatures on Form 16 are not of the authorized person of the company. The TDS deposited was on account of an inadvertent communication gap between the HR and the Accounts Department due to which the Accounts Department kept deducting the TDS, whereas Plaintiff was not in employment of the company after 01.09.2014. He further stated that the all relieving letters are issued by Ms. Manish and only she was authorized to sign any relieving letter. He further deposed that Ms. Manisha joined in 2013 and was still working in the company.
15.In her testimony, DW2 has relied upon letter dated 29.10.2013. She has stated that she joined her employment as an HR Manager of Splendor Landbase Limited. and was given the HR responsibilities of Defendant No. 3 Company as well. She has admitted that Ms. Sarita Kumari was working with Defendant No. 3 Company on 01.05.2015. With respect to the excess TDS being deposited in the name of the Plaintiff, she has stated that the same was done due to miscommunication between the HR and the Accounts Department. However, she did not remember if any intimation was sent to Accounts Department regarding the termination of the Plaintiff in October 2014.
CS DJ-1635/2017 Sukhminder Singh Sidana Vs. Sandeep Kalhan & Ors. Pg. 8 of 23 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA Date: BHATIA 2025.01.28 15:17:57 +0530 Arguments of plaintiff:
16.Ld. counsel for plaintiff has submitted that plaintiff was appointed as Senior Consultant by defendant no.3 company vide Appointment Letter dated 04.04.2014, Ex.PW1/1 on an annual remuneration of Rs.24 lacs and he was earlier working in the same capacity since 01.09.2013 prior to his formal appointment. It is further submitted that after October 2014, defendants failed to pay remuneration of an amount of Rs.14 lacs for the period from 01.10.2014 till 30.04.2015. The plaintiff resigned and was relieved on 01.05.2015 vide the Relieving Letter dated 01.05.2015, Ex.PW1/2. It is further submitted that vide Mark A, it is clear that defendant no.3 company deducted TDS validly for the whole financial year of 2014-2015 which goes to show that plaintiff was actually working in the company till 30.04.2015. It is further submitted that defendants have wrongfully withheld the amount of salary of plaintiff despite him performing his job well. It is further submitted that defendant no.1, CEO has admitted that stamp on the relieving letter looks genuine although he has denied the same. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the person who has signed the Relieving Letter dated 01.05.2015, Ex.PW1/2, Ms. Sarita Kumari was actually working in HR Department of defendant no.3 company at the time said letter was issued. It is further submitted that the contention of defendants is that Ms. Sarita Kumari was not the authorized to provide relieving letter as only defendant no.1 was authorized on behalf of defendant no.2 to issue appointment or relieving letters. It is further submitted that even after coming to know that the said Ms. Sarita Kumari CS DJ-1635/2017 Sukhminder Singh Sidana Vs. Sandeep Kalhan & Ors. Pg. 9 of 23 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.01.28 15:18:03 +0530 issued the relieving letter, they have not initiated any enquiry against Ms. Sarita Kumari which goes on to show that the the Relieving Letter dated 01.05.2015, Ex.PW1/2 was validly issued. Further, it is stated that defendant no.3 has deducted TDS for the whole financial year 2014-2015 which goes on to show that the plaintiff was working with defendant no. 3 company till 31.03.2015. Further, it is submitted that no written termination notice has been issued and as such, averments of defendants cannot be believed.
Arguments of defendants:
17. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for defendants has submitted that prior to the Appointment Letter dated 04.04.2014, Ex.PW1/1, the plaintiff was working with defendant no.3 company as Senior Consultant on a much lower salary and as such, plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed material information. The liability of defendants no.1 & 2 being Directors is also disputed as defendant no.3 is a public limited company and has its own legal entity. It is the case of defendants that plaintiff was absenting himself from work from 02.09.2014 and as per clause 4 of the Appointment Letter dated 04.04.2014, Ex.PW1/1, in case of continuous abstinence from work for a period of seven days, the services of plaintiff were liable to be terminated without giving any termination notice. It is further submitted that the present suit is barred under Section 21 of the Delhi Shops Establishment Act as the defendant no.3 is a commercial establishment as per the Act. It is further submitted that the Relieving Letter dated 01.05.2015, CS DJ-1635/2017 Sukhminder Singh Sidana Vs. Sandeep Kalhan & Ors. Pg. 10 of 23 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA Date: BHATIA 2025.01.28 15:18:10 +0530 Ex.PW1/2 is forged and fabricated document prepared at the instance of the plaintiff. It is further submitted that DW1 has testified that TDS from the salary of the plaintiff for the period from 01.10.2014 till 30.04.2015 has been wrongly deducted due to miscommunication between HR and accounts department of the defendant no.3 company. Thus, it is submitted that this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this case and even looking at merits, there is no substance in the case. In view of the same, dismissal of the suit is sought.
Analysis and Reasoning:
18.The present suit has been filed by plaintiff for recovery of salary for the period fro October 2014 to April 2015. The plaintiff has sought to rely upon period of employment by way of Appointment Letter dated 04.04.2014, Ex.PW1/1 and the Relieving Letter dated 01.05.2015, Ex.PW1/2. He has further sought to establish that he was working with defendant no.3 company till April, 2015 by way of Mark A i.e. Form 16 issued by defendant no.3 company and Mark C i.e. details of TDS deducted through the challans. Defendants have not disputed the fact that plaintiff was employed with defendant no.3 vide Appointment Letter dated 04.04.2014, Ex.PW1/1. However, they have disputed the genuineness of the Relieving Letter, Ex.PW1/2. However, it is an admitted case of defendants that defendant no.3 kept on deducting TDS on the salary of the plaintiff for the whole financial year of 2015. However, according to them, plaintiff absconded from the services from 02.09.2014 and was CS DJ-1635/2017 Sukhminder Singh Sidana Vs. Sandeep Kalhan & Ors. Pg. 11 of 23 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.01.28 15:18:18 +0530 automatically terminated within 7 days of absenting from work. Thus, the divergent claims of the parties i.e. the plaintiff's claim that he worked in the defendant no.3 company till 30.04.2015 and the contention of the defendants that plaintiff absented from work since 02.09.2014 has to be decided.
19.As mentioned herein above, the case of the plaintiff is mainly based upon the Relieving Letter, Ex.PW1/2 and Form 16, Mark A.
20.As far as the, the Relieving Letter, Ex.PW1/2 is concerned, the same is stated to have been issued by one Ms. Sarita Kumari, one of the admitted employee of defendant no.3 company. Although it is stated by defendants that Ms. Sarita Kumar was not authorized to issue and sign the relieving letter and only DW2 was authorized to sign the relieving letter. However, defendants apart from their testimony have not placed on record any document to the effect to show that only DW2 was authorized to issue relieving letter. In the testimony, DW2 has stated that she was the HR Manager with Splendor Landbase Limited and was getting salary from that company and not from defendant no.3. She has further stated that she was given additional responsibility as HR of defendant no.3 company six months after her joining with Splendor Landbase Limited. Although defendants have claimed that the Relieving Letter, Ex.PW1/2 is wrongly executed and Ms. Sarita Kumari was not competent to issue the said letter, however, no action or enquiry in this regard has been conducted by defendant no.3 company. DW1, CEO of the defendant no.3 has admitted that Ms. Sarita Kumar was employee of the CS DJ-1635/2017 Sukhminder Singh Sidana Vs. Sandeep Kalhan & Ors. Pg. 12 of 23 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.01.28 15:18:25 +0530 company and he has not stated anywhere in his evidence whether any action or enquiry was conducted against said Ms. Sarita Kumar. DW2 has admitted that Ms. Sarita Kumari was working with defendant no.3 company as on 01.05.2015 when, Ex.PW1/2 was executed. Thus, what appears it that Ms. Sarita Kumar was an employee of defendant no.3 company and was serving in the HR department itself. The original of Ex.PW1/2 has been produced during evidence. Apart from verbal assertions of the defendants, there is nothing on record to show that Ms. Sarita Kumari was not authorized to sign the relieving letter. The documents relating to authorization on behalf of defendant no.3 company can only be in the custody of defendant no.3. Despite the documents being in custody of defendant no.3 and being relevant to the present case, the same have not been produced before the court. Section 109 of the Bhartiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam, 2023 the burden of proof of a fact within the knowledge of any person is upon such person. The fact of Ms. Sarita Kumari not being authorized to sign the relieving letter was within the specific knowledge of Defendant no. 3 and no evidence has been led in this regard and as such, the presumption against defendants need to be drawn.
21.The second supporting evidence of the plaintiff to show that he worked till 30.04.2015 with defendant no.3 company is Form 16 issued by defendant no.3 in favour of plaintiff. The same has been filed by plaintiff along with his plaint. As the same has been executed by designated official of defendant no.3 company, during evidence, the same was marked and not exhibited. However, in their CS DJ-1635/2017 Sukhminder Singh Sidana Vs. Sandeep Kalhan & Ors. Pg. 13 of 23 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA Date: BHATIA 2025.01.28 15:18:31 +0530 Written statement as well as evidence led by defendants, they have not denied existence of Form 16 or the fact that the amount of TDS was deducted till March, 2015. As such, the said document is deemed to be proved as the contents of the same have been admitted indirectly by the defendants. Further, the defendants' witnesses have admitted that the amount of TDS was deducted till 30.03.2015 but in the defence of defendants with regard to the deduction of TDS till March, 2015 is that there was some miscommunication between the various departments of the defendant no.3 and as such, the excess amount of the TDS was deducted on behalf of plaintiff. The fact that the excess TDS was deducted till March 2015 is mentioned in the Written Statement and defendants were aware of the same while filing the Written Statement. Moreover, no evidence has been led by the defendants to show that TDS was wrongly deducted or the fact that they rectified the same with income tax authorities. Needless to say that this information would only be with the defendant company, yet they did not produce any evidence to show that they had actually rectified with relevant authority. DW1 was asked whether any rectification of the alleged error in the deposition of the TDS has been done by the defendant no.3 to which he replied that he did not have any information of the same and the said information would be with the accounts department. However, no witness from the accounts department was examined by defendants to prove that whether any rectification was carried out or not. No such document has been filed by defendants to show that defendant no.3 actually took steps to rectify the alleged excess TDS deducted. This being the basis of the defence of the defendants and defendants not disclosing CS DJ-1635/2017 Sukhminder Singh Sidana Vs. Sandeep Kalhan & Ors. Pg. 14 of 23 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA Date: BHATIA 2025.01.28 15:18:37 +0530 such information despite the same being an important fact to their defence, presumption has to be made that no such rectification was done by defendant no.3. Once it is presumed that no rectification was done by defendant no.3 regarding deposit of TDS till March 2015, it has to be presumed that the plaintiff served with defendant no.3 company atleast till 30.03.2015. However, the Relieving Letter, Ex.PW1/2 shows that plaintiff worked with defendant no.3 till 30.04.2015. No effective rebuttal or evidence with regard to both the aspects of relieving letter as well as Form 16 has been led by the defendants.
22.Based upon the above discussion, the issues are decided as follows :
ISSUES NO.1 & 2:
"A) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of recovery of amount, as prayed for? OPP B) If the issue No.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff, whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP"
23.As discussed herein above, the evidence led in the case would show that plaintiff worked with the defendant no.3 company till 30.4.2015. It is an admitted case of the parties that no salary has been paid to plaintiff after September 2014 as defendants have claimed that plaintiff absconded from his work from 02.09.2014 and has not worked for the period from 01.10.2014 till 30.04.2015. Thus, what is clear is that plaintiff has been able to show that he was working with defendant no.3 till 30.04.2015 and as such, the plaintiff is CS DJ-1635/2017 Sukhminder Singh Sidana Vs. Sandeep Kalhan & Ors. Pg. 15 of 23 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA Date: BHATIA 2025.01.28 15:18:44 +0530 deemed entitled to recovery of Rs.14 lacs for salary for the period from October 2014 till 30.04.2015. The plaintiff is also found entitled to simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till recovery.
ISSUE NO.3:
"C) Whether the plaintiff has remained unauthorized absent from work from 02.09.2014 and has not worked with the defendants from 01.10.2014 till 30.04.2015? OPDs"
24.The onus to prove this issue was on defendants. The defendants have claimed that plaintiff has not worked with defendant no.3 company from 02.09.2014 till 30.04.2015. However, defendants apart from their oral testimony have not shown that the plaintiff did not work for the period from October 2014 till 30.04.2015 with the defendant no.3 company. The information regarding attendance, etc. of the plaintiff is in the custody of defendant no.3. As the onus was on defendants to show that the plaintiff did not work for the said period with the defendant no.3 company and defendants have not led any evidence for the same, as such, this issue is decided against the defendants and in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE No.4:
"D) Whether the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands?OPDs"
25.Ld. counsel for defendants submitted that plaintiff has concealed material information from this court that the plaintiff was working with defendant no.3 since 29.10.2013 on retainerhsip basis on a CS DJ-1635/2017 Sukhminder Singh Sidana Vs. Sandeep Kalhan & Ors. Pg. 16 of 23 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA Date: BHATIA 2025.01.28 15:18:51 +0530 consolidated salary of Rs.1 lac per month.
26.It is stated by Ld. Counsel for defendants that this fact is not mentioned in the plaint and it is unbelievable that plaintiff was employee of defendant no.3 for a monthly remuneration of Rs.2 lacs when he was earlier with defendant no.3 on retainership basis on a monthly salary of Rs.1 lac.
27.As this concealment of fact is material, the plaintiff cannot be given any relief. However, perusal of plaint would reveal that plaintiff has mentioned that before formal appointment vide Ex.PW1/1, he was working with defendant no.3 from 29.10.2013. It is the contention of defendants that plaintiff has suppressed this fact and he cannot be believed. Moreover, the defendants have admitted that plaintiff was working with defendant no.3 vide Ex.PW1/1 for package of Rs.24 lacs. Thus, the contention of defendants regarding the present issue are not relevant to the case when the defendants have admitted to the appointment of the plaintiff vide Ex.PW1/1. As such, this issue is decided against the Defendants and in favour of the Plaintiff. ISSUE NO.5:
"E)Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? OPDs"
28.Ld. counsel for defendants has submitted that the suit is filed against all the defendants but defendants no.1 & 2 are not liable to pay the dues as the plaintiff was employee of defendant no.3. They have also filed application under Order I Rule 10 CPC in this regard. Furthermore, while framing of issues, Ld. Predecessor Court has CS DJ-1635/2017 Sukhminder Singh Sidana Vs. Sandeep Kalhan & Ors. Pg. 17 of 23 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA Date: BHATIA 2025.01.28 15:18:59 +0530 held that this application to be decided along with issue no.5.
29.Ld. counsel for plaintiff has submitted that he was employee of defendant no.3 company and defendants no.1 and 2 are the defendants in the case only being Directors of the company. He has admitted that there is no liability arising against defendants no.1 & 2.
30.In view of above submissions, defendants no.1 and 2 are held to be not liable for the reliefs claimed in the present case. Further, this would not affect the case as such and the liability of defendant no.3. In view of same, the issue no.5 is decided as above. ISSUE NO.6:
"F) Whether the suit is barred u/s 41(h) of Specific Relief Act?
OPDs"
31.Ld. counsel for defendants has submitted that the present suit is barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as a special Tribunal has been constituted under Delhi Shops & Establishment Act 1954 and all claims arising out of salary disputes of an employee of commercial establishment are to be dealt as per Section 21 of Delhi Shops & Establishment Act 1954. He has relied upon the judgments of Dhulabhai Etc. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 1968 SCC Online SC40 and Bata Shoe Co. Ltd. Vs. City of Jabalpur Corporation, (1977) SCC472.
32.In the case of Dhulabhai Etc. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as follows :
"Where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special CS DJ-1635/2017 Sukhminder Singh Sidana Vs. Sandeep Kalhan & Ors. Pg. 18 of 23 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA Date: BHATIA 2025.01.28 15:19:05 +0530 tribunals the civil court's jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure.
Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil court.
Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive. In the latter case, it is necessary to see if the statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for the determination of the right or liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies normally associated with actions in civil courts are prescribed by the said statute or not."
33.Section 21 of Delhi Shops & Establishment Act 1954 reads as follows :
"21. Claims relating to wages.--(1) The Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint any Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act or other officer with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or as a Stipendiary Magistrate to be the authority to hear CS DJ-1635/2017 Sukhminder Singh Sidana Vs. Sandeep Kalhan & Ors. Pg. 19 of 23 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.01.28 15:19:11 +0530 and decide all claims arising out of delayed payment or non-payment of earned wages of an employee employed in any establishment.
(2) Application for any such claim may be made to the authority appointed under sub-section (1) by the employee himself or any Official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf or any legal practitioner or the Chief Inspector for a direction under sub-section Provided that every such application should be presented within one year from the date the claim for such wages has become payable under this Act:
Provided further that an application may be admitted after the said period of one year when the applicant satisfies the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. (3) When any application under sub-section (2) is entertained, the authority shall hear the applicant and the employer, or give them an opportunity of being heard and after such further enquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary may without prejudice to any other penalty to which employer may be liable under this Act, direct the payment to the employee of the amount due to him together with the payment of such compensation as the authority may think fit, not exceeding half the amount so due or Rs. 100, whichever is less.
(4) If the authority hearing any application under this section is satisfied that it was either malicious or vexatious, it may direct that a penalty not exceeding hundred rupees be paid to the employer by the person presenting the application.
CS DJ-1635/2017 Sukhminder Singh Sidana Vs. Sandeep Kalhan & Ors. Pg. 20 of 23 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.01.28 15:19:18 +0530 (5) Any amount directed to be paid under this section may be recovered,--
(a) if the authority is a Magistrate, by the authority as if it was a fine imposed by the authority as a Magistrate, or
(b) if the authority is not Magistrate, by any Magistrate to whom the authority makes application in this behalf, as if it were a fine imposed by such Magistrate. (6) Every direction of the authority under this section shall be final.
(7) Every authority appointed under sub-section (1) shall have all powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the purpose of taking evidence and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents, and every such authority shall be deemed to be a civil court for all the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898"
34.Thus, what is clear from the reading of above is that there is no express exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil courts by Section 21 of DSE Act. What is further revealed is that Section 21 empowers the Tribunal to grant arrears of salary to the claimant as well as damages amounting to half of the claim or Rs.100/- whichever is less. A conjoint reading of Section 21 and Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhulabhai Etc. (supra), would reveal that the present case falls in 3rd general category as there is no express exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil courts. Thus, what has to be seen is whether there is an implied exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts by Section 21 of DSE Act, 1954.
CS DJ-1635/2017 Sukhminder Singh Sidana Vs. Sandeep Kalhan & Ors. Pg. 21 of 23 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date: 2025.01.28 15:19:24 +0530
35.In the abovesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an important fact while deciding exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts is that whether the remedy which is normally associated with the action in civil courts are prescribed by the statute or not. Section 34 CPC empowers a civil court to grant pendente-lite and future interest to the plaintiff in case he is found eligible to the amount claimed.
36.Perusal of Section 21 of the DSE Act reveals that a Tribunal is not empowered to grant pendente-lite and future interest which can be granted by a civil court under Section 34 CPC. It is a common fact that the cases take long time to be decided in the courts and also the amount granted to the plaintiff takes further time to be realized by way of execution and in proceedings of such nature interest becomes an important relief for the plaintiff who has fought for years for his rights. Interest is a remedy which is normally sought in civil courts and the Tribunal under Section 21 the DSE Act is not empowered to grant interest. Further, as there is no direct bar to the jurisdiction of civil court under Section 21 of DSE Act and the same does not provide for grant of interest, it cannot be said that Delhi Shops & Establishment Act 1954 even impliedly bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court.
37.Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to file a suit before a Civil Court if he wishes to claim interest on the amount claimed in the suit. He may chose to file a claim before the Tribunal under Section 21 of Delhi Shops & Establishment Act 1954 if he is willing to forgo interest.
CS DJ-1635/2017 Sukhminder Singh Sidana Vs. Sandeep Kalhan & Ors. Pg. 22 of 23 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA Date: BHATIA 2025.01.28 15:19:32 +0530
Further, Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is in relation to injunctions and does not have any effect on a suit for recovery of money. As such, it is clear that the present suit is not barred by Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Thus, this issue is decided against the defendants and in favour of plaintiff.
Relief:
38.In view of above discussion, the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.14 lacs along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization only from defendant no.3. No relief can be granted against defendants no.1 & 2. Cost of the suit is also granted to plaintiff.
39.Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
40.File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed
RAHUL by RAHUL
BHATIA
BHATIA Date: 2025.01.28
15:19:40 +0530
Announced in the open (RAHUL BHATIA)
Court on 24.01.2025 District Judge-01(SE),
Saket Courts, New Delhi.
CS DJ-1635/2017 Sukhminder Singh Sidana Vs. Sandeep Kalhan & Ors. Pg. 23 of 23