Delhi District Court
Ajay Mamgain vs Peps Industries Pvt Ld on 30 March, 2026
- 1 -
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-02, WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
(Presided over by Sh. Lalit Kumar, DJS)
SUIT No. 457/2017
CNR No. DLWT03-001031-2017
In The Matter Between:
Ajay Mamgain,
S/o Sh. A. P. Mamgain,
R/o. B-98, First Floor,
Sector 122, Noida,
Uttar Pradesh.
..........................PLAINTIFF
Versus
PEPS Industries Private Limited,
Registered Office :-
V-ID, NGEF Ancillary (I) Estate,
Mahadevapura, Bangalore,
Karnataka.
Also at:-
Head Quarter (Delhi),
Plot No. 249,
Swarn Park Industrial Area,
Mundka, Delhi.
.....................DEFENDANT
Suit No. 457/2017 Ajay Mamgain vs. PEPS Industries Pvt. Ltd. 1/25
Digitally signed by Lalit Kumar
Lalit Kumar Date: 2026.04.01 15:46:26 +0530
- 2 -
Suit filed on :- 07.04.2017
Judgment Reserved on :- 13.02.2026
Date of decision :- 30.03.2026
Decision :- PARTLY DECREED
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pleadings of the plaintiff ............................................................... 2
Pleadings of Defendant ................................................................. 5
Issues ............................................................................................. 7
Plaintiff's Evidence ....................................................................... 7
Defendant's Evidence ................................................................. 10
Analysis and Findings ................................................................. 18
Issue wise findings ...................................................................... 23
Conclusion................................................................................... 24
Relief ........................................................................................... 25
Cost.............................................................................................. 25
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
JUDGMENT
By this judgment, this Court shall decide a suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. Before adjudicating the issues framed, it is crucial to concisely state the pleadings in the present suit.
PLEADINGS OF THE PLAINTIFF
1. The plaintiff instituted the present suit against Peps Industries Private Limited seeking recovery of Rs.2,00,735/- along with Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2026.04.01 15:46:33 +0530 Suit No. 457/2017 Ajay Mamgain vs. PEPS Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2/25
- 3 -
pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum, on the allegation that the defendant failed to discharge its contractual obligation to pay amounts due and payable to him arising out of his employment.
2. It is averred that the plaintiff was appointed as Senior Zonal Manager in the defendant company on 4 April 2012 pursuant to a Letter of Intent dated 8 March 2012, and that he was entitled to monetary benefits in terms of the agreed employment conditions. Plaintiff avers that during his service, he worked to the satisfaction of the defendant and was granted an increment with effect from 1 April 2013 by letter dated 7 May 2013 issued by the Managing Director of the defendant company. It is also pleaded that he was posted at the defendant's office at Plot No. 249, Swarn Park Industrial Area, Mundka, Delhi, and that he resigned from service by letter dated 7 April 2014, requesting that he be relieved by 30 April 2014. According to plaintiff, the resignation was duly acknowledged, charge was taken over by the plaintiff's successor on 22 April 2014, and a detailed handing over report was prepared and circulated to concerned persons, including the top management. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff continued to work at the defendant company till 3 May 2014 at the request of the defendant, provided assistance in the handover process, and delivered the laptop and charger to Mr. Gulati. The plaintiff also submitted travelling expense sheets for March 2014 and April 2014, amounting to Rs.20,153/- and Rs.13,475/-, which were disbursed by the defendant through RTGS transfer into his account.
3. It is further averred that on 3 May 2014, the plaintiff was Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Suit No. 457/2017 Ajay Mamgain vs. PEPS Industries Pvt. Ltd. 3/25 Kumar Date:
2026.04.01 15:46:37 +0530
- 4 -
entitled to receive arrears and other employment benefits under several heads, namely -
(i) salary for March 2014 of Rs.52,000/-,
(ii) salary for April 2014 of Rs.52,000/-,
(iii) salary for 3 days in May 2014 of Rs.5,023/-,
(iv) bonus deducted from salary at Rs.1,871/- per month for the years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 in the amounts of Rs.22,455/- and Rs.13,097/- respectively, and
(v) earned leave for 2 years, i.e. 30 days on gross salary, amounting to Rs.56,160/-, Making a total of Rs.2,00,735/-.
4. It is further stated that the plaintiff requested settlement of his dues on the last working day and that on 29 May 2014 the Managing Director accepted the commitment through email, but the dues were not cleared. The plaintiff alleges that despite repeated oral and written requests to various personnel of the defendant company, the amount remained unpaid and the defendant kept evading payment on one pretext or another. The plaint also refers to a letter dated 13 October 2014, through which the defendant allegedly admitted that arrears of salary were due but refused payment on the pretext of "clearance of balance" and collection of C Forms.
5. It is further averred that the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 2 February 2015 through counsel calling upon the defendant to clear the arrears within 15 days, but the defendant replied on 8 May 2015 on false and baseless grounds and still did not make payment.
6. For the purpose of limitation, the plaint asserts that the cause of action arose on 3 May 2014, on each occasion when Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Suit No. 457/2017 Ajay Mamgain vs. PEPS Industries Pvt. Ltd. 4/25 Date:
Kumar 2026.04.01 15:46:41 +0530
- 5 -
payment was demanded, upon issuance of the legal notice, and upon the defendant's reply dated 8 May 2015, and that the cause of action continues as the amount remains unpaid.
7. Based on above averments, the plaintiff is seeking a decree for recovery of money, directing the defendant to pay Rs.2,00,735/- with pendente lite and future interest at 12% per annum till realization, along with costs of the suit.
PLEADINGS OF DEFENDANT
8. The defendant, Peps Industries Private Limited, has filed the written statement contesting the suit in its entirety and asserting that the suit is false, mala fide, not maintainable in law or on facts, and that the plaintiff is not entitled to any alleged arrears of salary, bonus, or earned leave.
9. It is admitted that the plaintiff was appointed as Senior Zonal Manager (North) with effect from 4 April 2012 under the Letter of Intent dated 8 March 2012, appointment letter dated 21 April 2012, and related correspondence, but that his remuneration and monetary benefits were linked to performance, job responsibilities, and Key Result Areas (KRA) targets.
10. The defendant contends that the plaintiff did not perform his duties satisfactorily, did not deliver remarkable results, and failed to settle market-related issues in the areas under his charge. It avers that the increment letter dated 7 May 2013 was issued only on humanitarian considerations and not as proof of satisfactory performance. It is specifically alleged that he failed to collect C Forms amounting to about Rs.1.6 crores for the financial years 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14, Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2026.04.01 15:46:45 +0530 Suit No. 457/2017 Ajay Mamgain vs. PEPS Industries Pvt. Ltd. 5/25
- 6 -
did not submit confirmation of balances to parties for 2012-13 and 2013-14, and did not finalize accounts in promotional activities for 2013-14. On these basis, the defendant denies the plaintiff's claim that any detailed handing over/taking over was prepared and circulated, though it admits that the plaintiff handed over the laptop and charger to Mr. Gulati on 3 May 2014.
11. The defendant further disputes any alleged commitment to clear dues, stating that its email of 29 May 2014 only forwarded the plaintiff's request to the Vice President and did not amount to an admission by the Managing Director.
12. The defendant also avers that the plaintiff's performance was consistently poor, that his targets were repeatedly reviewed, and that despite a reduced sales target of 40%, he failed to improve; that against a target of Rs.15 crores, he achieved only Rs.1.26 crores in 2012-13 and Rs.1.33 crores in 2013-14, and that he was issued a KRA letter dated 10 May 2013 but still failed to meet expectations. It avers that the plaintiff's remuneration was performance-linked, that the defendant suffered losses on account of his non-achievement of targets, and that any such losses should be set off if at all any amount were ever found payable. The defendant denies that the plaintiff was entitled to salary for March 2014, April 2014, or 3 days of May 2014, denies any entitlement to bonus for the years mentioned, and denies entitlement to earned leave.
13. In relation to the letter dated 13 October 2014, the defendant admits the letter as a matter of record but denies mala fide intention, and states that the plaintiff failed to collect C Forms worth Rs.98,41,799/-, causing loss to the company, which Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2026.04.01 15:46:50 +0530 Suit No. 457/2017 Ajay Mamgain vs. PEPS Industries Pvt. Ltd. 6/25
- 7 -
also should be set off against any amount claimed. The reply to the legal notice dated 2 February 2015 is also defended as correct and legal, and the defendant denies any intention to cheat or misappropriate the plaintiff's dues.
14. On this basis, the defendant denies all claims of dues totalling Rs.2,00,735/- and also points out that the plaintiff had earlier sent a legal notice claiming Rs.2,47,867/-, which, according to the defendant, shows uncertainty and fabrication in the plaintiff's claim.
15. On these grounds, the defendant seeks dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs.
ISSUES
16. Based on the pleadings of both the sides, following issues were framed on 26.11.2018:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the money decree as prayed for along with interest, if yes, then at what rate and for which period? OPP
2. Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
17. Plaintiff appeared as sole witness - PW-1. His evidence affidavit (Ex. PW-1/A) reproduced the contents of plaint and relied on following documents:
Identification Mark Description
Ex. PW1/1 original letter dated 07.05.2013
Ex. PW1/3 original received resignation letter
dated 07.04.2014
Ex. PW1/4 original handing over letter of laptop
dated 03.05.2014,
Digitally
signed by
Lalit
Lalit Kumar
Kumar Date:
2026.04.01
15:46:54
+0530
Suit No. 457/2017 Ajay Mamgain vs. PEPS Industries Pvt. Ltd. 7/25
- 8 -
Ex.PW1/5 printout of email dated 29.05.2014
Ex. PW1/6 (colly.) printout of email dated 03.05.2014 and
06.05.2014
Ex. PW1/7 printout of email dated 07.05.2014
Ex. PW1/8 Legal Notice dated 02.02.2015,
Ex. PW1/9 Certificate under Section 65B of Indian
Evidence Act,
Mark A Letter of intent dated 08.03.2012
Mark B Copy of pay slip
18. In cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that he was appointed as Senior Zonal Manager with the defendant company and was responsible for supervising sales in his assigned territory comprising Delhi, Punjab, Haryana, Uttarakhand and Rajasthan, and that his official email ID was [email protected]. When confronted with certain e-mails, he acknowledged them and stated that he had executed those mails, which were exhibited as Ex.PW1/D1 (colly.).
18.1. He admitted that requests for sending C-Forms were to be made by the accounts department to dealers, while he had the responsibility to follow up with his subordinates for collection of C-Forms. With respect to e- mail dated 12.03.2013 (sic; email at page no.2 of Ex. PW1/D1 is actually dated 12.03.2014), he stated that he had taken follow-ups, that some dealers mentioned therein were handled by his predecessor and he was dealing with only five parties, and that for earlier parties he had asked the accounts department to verify dispatch of C-Forms and issue debit notes if not sent; however, he admitted that Digitally signed by Suit No. 457/2017 Ajay Mamgain vs. PEPS Industries Pvt. Ltd. 8/25 Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2026.04.01 15:46:59 +0530
- 9 -
he had no written proof of such instructions, though he stated that he must have forwarded the e-mail to the accounts department and subordinates. He further admitted that he could not state the amount of C-Forms pending at the time of his resignation, and that sales targets assigned were on the higher side. When confronted with the statement of targets versus achievements for financial years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, he denied its correctness and it was marked as Ex.PW1/Mark A. 18.2. Regarding Ex.PW1/1 (increment letter dated 07.05.2013 in favour of plaintiff), he explained that "mutually beneficial" meant that he worked for salary and career benefit while his efforts benefited the company, and denied that it meant salary was dependent solely on achieving targets, asserting that the company could not refuse salary for non-achievement of targets. He stated that at the time of leaving the company, C-Forms worth about Rs.8-9 lakhs were pending. He further stated that he handed over charge on 22.04.2014 to Mr. Parvez Khan, that a meeting was held with accountant Mr. Ajay and senior Mr. Ashwin Gulati, and that minutes of meeting were sent via email dated 29.04.2014 recording his last working day as 30.04.2014 (email is Ex.PW1/D2 and minutes of meeting are Ex.PW1/D3). He stated that the minutes reflected outstanding balances and pending C-
Forms, and that after resignation he undertook tours for about 12 days with subordinates and seniors during which balance confirmations were obtained from dealers. 18.3. He further stated that after his resignation, his Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2026.04.01 15:47:05 +0530 Suit No. 457/2017 Ajay Mamgain vs. PEPS Industries Pvt. Ltd. 9/25
- 10 -
Managing Director and Joint Managing Director called him at Gym Khana Club, New Delhi, informed him that he was leaving on a good note, and directed him to hand over charge to Mr. Parvez Khan and company property to Mr. Gulati on the last working day. He stated that in May he sent an e-mail to the Managing Director, who replied that his full and final would be processed by the accounts department, and that he received a "good bye mail" and final relieving letter from Mr. Gulati. 18.4. As regards monetary claims, he stated that bonus was claimed for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14, that approximately Rs.1,800/- per month was deducted towards bonus, that bonus was mentioned in the increment letter dated May 2013, and that his CTC thereafter was Rs.6.73 lakhs including bonus.
18.5. He further stated that earned leave was a company rule and his constitutional right. He stated that earned leaves were part of full and final settlement; and that during his 25 months of service he availed approximately 20-25 days' leave, though he did not remember the exact number.
18.6. He denied all suggestions that the e-mails were fabricated, that his salary was linked to performance, that he was not entitled to the claimed amounts, or that he was deposing falsely.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
19. Defendant produced two witnesses in its evidence. Sh.
Ashwani Gulati, who is the Assistant General Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2026.04.01 15:47:09 +0530 Suit No. 457/2017 Ajay Mamgain vs. PEPS Industries Pvt. Ltd. 10/25
- 11 -
Manager/Authorised Representative of the defendant company appeared as DW-1. His evidence affidavit (Ex. DW- 1/A) reproduced the contents of WS and relied on the emails confronted to the PW-1 during his cross examination and marked as Ex. PW-1/D-1 (colly).
20. In cross-examination, DW-1 Ashwani Gulati stated that at the time when the plaintiff was working with the defendant company, he was posted as Assistant General Manager and had earlier worked with Kurl On Ltd. He also stated that the plaintiff was reporting to head office and that the plaintiff was not reporting to him as an immediate superior. When the resignation-cum-notice dated 07.04.2014 (Ex. PW-1/3) was shown to him, he denied that the signature at point 'X' belonged to him. When the letter dated 03.05.2014 (Ex.PW-
1/4) was shown to him, he stated that he did not remember whether that was the plaintiff's last working day, and added that the letter pertained to return of laptop with charger. On being confronted with the e-mail dated 29.04.2014 (Ex. PW- 1/D2), he stated that there was no handing over of charge in accordance with that e-mail and that there was only discussion about outstanding matters; he also stated that, at the end of the minutes of meeting (Ex. Ex. PW-1/D3), it was mentioned that the plaintiff had to hand over the company belongings on his last day of working. On the question whether he and others went to Bhatinda and Haridwar during the notice period for collection of C-Forms and outstanding payments, he stated that he did not remember. He admitted that the plaintiff's salary was increased as per the increment letter dated 07.05.2013 (Ex. PW-1/1), but stated that it was done only to Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2026.04.01 15:47:14 +0530 Suit No. 457/2017 Ajay Mamgain vs. PEPS Industries Pvt. Ltd. 11/25
- 12 -
boost the plaintiff's morale and to help him achieve his target, which he did not achieve. He also stated that the Marketing Department was responsible for collection of C-Forms.
21. In his further cross-examination, DW-1 stated that he was still working with PEPS Industries Pvt. Ltd. and had been working there since August 2008. When asked whether the plaintiff had served resignation or notice before leaving, he stated that he did not remember because the plaintiff was not reporting to him. He also reaffirmed that, while he was working as AGM, the plaintiff was not reporting to him as an immediate superior. On being asked about C-Forms, he stated that the Sales Tax Department issues C-Forms to dealers and distributors, and that the concerned dealers and distributors collect C-Forms from their Sales Tax Department; he further stated that the plaintiff had to collect C-Forms from them for the company. He also stated that the accounts department would give the details of C-Form dues to the concerned employee, who would collect the C-Forms from dealers and distributors. When confronted with the e-mails in Ex.PW-
1/D1 (colly.), he stated that the e-mail dated 15.02.2014 was too old for him to remember, but on being shown the e-mail dated 12.03.2014, he stated that he did not remember the details for the years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 because of the passage of time. He, however, stated that the list in the same e-mail relating to pending C-Forms for 2012-13 and 2013-14 directly concerned Mr. Ajay Mamgain and that those were not collected.
21.1. He further stated that the assessment cases for the earlier years were over and that the company paid Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Suit No. 457/2017 Ajay Mamgain vs. PEPS Industries Pvt. Ltd. 12/25 Date:
Kumar 2026.04.01 15:47:18 +0530
- 13 -
penalties where C-Forms could not be collected, including for 2012-13 and 2013-14. When asked about the timing of C-Form issuance, he explained that after completion of the first quarter in the financial year, dealers and distributors submit sales summaries to the Sales Tax Department, which then issues the C-Form. 21.2. He then stated that the plaintiff, having worked for the financial years 2012-13 and 2013-14, was liable to collect C-Forms, outstanding amounts and balance confirmations from dealers and distributors for those periods, and that he had not done so, due to which the company paid huge penalties in sales tax. When confronted with the e-mail dated 07.05.2014 (Ex. PW-1/7), he admitted that he had sent the e-mail to the plaintiff wishing him a bright future, though he said it was on humanitarian grounds. He also admitted the certificate dated 03.05.2014 (Ex. PW-1/4), and when asked whether it recorded that the plaintiff handed over charge along with laptop and charger, he stated that the company had received the laptop but had suffered heavy losses by way of sales tax and penalties, and that in the absence of confirmation of balance, dealers did not pay the company's money, which he described as a direct loss.
21.3. On being asked whether an employee after resignation is entitled to earned leave and bonus, he stated that he was not aware because his department did not deal with that policy, and that it was a general question.
22. DW-2 - Sh. Ajay Kumar Shukla, who was working as Branch Accountant in the defendant Company appeared as Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2026.04.01 Suit No. 457/2017 Ajay Mamgain vs. PEPS Industries Pvt. Ltd. 13/25 15:47:23 +0530
- 14 -
DW-2. In his evidence affidavit Ex. DW-2/A, DW-2 reiterated the contents of WS and further stated that the plaintiff failed to collect C Forms amounting to Rs.1.6 crores for the financial years 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14, did not submit confirmation of balances to parties for 2012-13 and 2013-14, and did not finalize accounts for promotional activities in 2013-14. He also stated that the plaintiff failed to collect C Forms for Rs.98,41,799/-, and because of the losses caused to the defendant company, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover any amount from the defendant. DW-2 further stated that the plaintiff achieved only Rs.1.26 crores in 2012-13 and Rs.1.33 crores in 2013-14 against a target of Rs.15 crores, resulting in performance of less than 10%, and despite reduction of the target by 40%, no improvement was shown. He relied upon a KRA letter dated 10.05.2013 and stated that the plaintiff failed to achieve the target mentioned therein. He also stated that the performance chart from October 2013 to March 2014 reflected the plaintiff's achievements vis-à-vis targets, and that the defendant suffered losses on account of non-achievement of targets. He relied on the comparative chart of targets versus achievements for FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14, the C Form pending list, and the target-versus-achievement chart for October 2013 to March 2014.
22.1. He further stated that the electronic records relied upon in his evidence were regularly maintained by him as Branch Accountant since July 2013, that the computer system used by him was functioning normally, that the printouts were taken from his computer and printer, and Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Suit No. 457/2017 Ajay Mamgain vs. PEPS Industries Pvt. Ltd. 14/25 Kumar Date:
2026.04.01 15:47:27 +0530
- 15 -
that the hard copies were identical to the records available on the computer. He also certified the regularity, authenticity, and non-tampering of the electronic records and printouts relied upon in evidence. 22.2. DW-2 relied upon following two documents:
DW-2/1 - C form pending list against plaintiff. DW-2/2 - Target Vs. Achievement of plaintiff for the duration October, 2014 (sic, 2013) to March 2014.
22.3. In cross-examination, DW-2 stated that he joined the defendant company in 2013, that he was presently on contract basis since the last one year, and that he had left the defendant company in April 2023 but continued to be in contract services, with rejoining on contract basis in July 2024. He stated that even when he was not formally employed, he was handling the affairs of the defendant company and was paid remuneration during the period April 2023 to July 2024.
22.4. DW-2 described himself as Branch Accountant in the accounts and factory operations department. When asked whether he dealt with C Forms during his employment, he answered in the affirmative and stated that he used to follow up C Forms from the sales team and enter the data in the company records. He stated that the sales team had two persons, namely Mr. Ajay Mamgain and Mr. Ashwini Gulati, and that Mr. Ajay Mamgain was the Zonal Manager of the sales team, with Mr. Rajan and Mr. Vishal as business officers under him. He also stated that there was no agreement between the dealers and the defendant Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2026.04.01 Suit No. 457/2017 Ajay Mamgain vs. PEPS Industries Pvt. Ltd. 15/25 15:47:32 +0530
- 16 -
company.
22.5. When asked whether it was the dealers' responsibility to collect and send C Forms against billing from the sales tax department, he denied it and stated that the dealers took C Forms from the sales tax department and it was the responsibility of the sales team to collect them from the dealers. He stated that he did not know who handled the sales department before the plaintiff joined, since he joined only in 2013.
22.6. On being confronted with Ex. PW-1/D1, and asked why the C Forms pending as per the e-mail dated 12.03.2014 for the years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12 were not received by the company, he stated that he did not know. When asked about the pending demand for C Forms for 2012-13 and 2013-14 mentioned in the e-mail dated 12.03.2014 [part of Ex. PW-1/D-1 (colly)], he stated that there were many other parties whose C Forms were pending and that the list in the e-mail was not complete and was wrong. On being asked when C Forms are collected if billing is done in April 2014, he stated that they are collected in the next quarter. 22.7. When confronted with Ex. DW-2/1 and asked whether the C Forms of the parties Supreme Engg., Garg Brothers, and Studio Inside had been received by the company, he stated that he did not remember. When asked how many C Forms in respect of the dealers and distributors mentioned in Ex. DW-2/1 had now been received by the company, he again stated that he did not remember. 22.8. When confronted with Ex. PW-1/Mark A (Target vs. Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2026.04.01 15:47:36 Suit No. 457/2017 Ajay Mamgain vs. PEPS Industries Pvt. Ltd. 16/25 +0530
- 17 -
Achievement for FY 2012-13) and asked what target was given to the plaintiff for 2012-13 and what achievement he made against it, DW-2 stated that the target was Rs.3.38 crores and the plaintiff achieved Rs.2.23 crores. 22.9. He also stated that Mr. Shankar Ram was the Joint Managing Director and Mr. Madhvan was the Managing Director of the defendant company, both being at the head office in Bengaluru. When confronted with Ex. PW-1/D2 (email dated 29.04.2014 carrying minutes of meeting) and asked whether he attended the meeting reflected in Ex.
PW-1/D3 (minutes of meeting dated 22.04.2014), he answered yes. He further stated that Mr. Parvez Khan, whose name appeared in Ex. PW-1/D3, was the newly joined AGM of the defendant company and that he had joined in place of the plaintiff. However, he did not remember whether the meeting reflected in Ex. PW-1/D3 took place before the plaintiff's last working day. He stated that whatever discussion took place was reflected in the minutes of meeting Ex. PW-1/D3.
22.10. Finally, when confronted with Ex. PW-1/6 and asked whether he had received the goodbye mail on the plaintiff's last working day dated 03.05.2014, he stated that although the mail mentioned his e-mail ID, he had not received it. He added that while he receives mails sent to his official e-mail ID, sometimes mails go to junk folder and may not be seen by him. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2026.04.01 15:47:41 +0530 Suit No. 457/2017 Ajay Mamgain vs. PEPS Industries Pvt. Ltd. 17/25
- 18 -
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
23. In a gist, the plaintiff pleads that he performed his duties satisfactorily, was granted an increment, resigned on 07.04.2014, and continued to work till 03.05.2014 at the defendant's request after duly handing over charge, but despite repeated demands, the defendant failed to clear his legitimate dues towards salary, bonus and earned leave amounting to Rs.2,00,735/-. The defendant, while admitting the appointment, disputes the plaintiff's performance and asserts that his employment was performance-linked, that he failed to achieve targets, did not collect C-Forms and settle accounts, and thereby caused loss to the company; it further denies proper handing over or acceptance of resignation in the manner alleged and contends that no amount is payable to the plaintiff.
24. At the outset, the appointment of the plaintiff as Senior Zonal Manager is not in dispute. Though the Letter of Intent (Mark- A) was not proved as per law since the original was not produced, record was not summoned and secondary evidence was not led; the factum of appointment of plaintiff as Senior Zonal Manager is not in dispute between the parties.
25. As regards performance, the plaintiff has relied upon the increment letter dated 07.05.2013 (Ex. PW-1/1), which shows that his monthly take-home salary was set at Rs.52,000/-. The defendant has attempted to explain the increment as being granted on humanitarian grounds and averred that the plaintiff cannot claim his performance was satisfactory on the basis of increment letter. However, no contemporaneous adverse material such as warning memo/letters, show cause notices, or Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2026.04.01 Suit No. 457/2017 Ajay Mamgain vs. PEPS Industries Pvt. Ltd. 18/25 15:47:46 +0530
- 19 -
disciplinary proceedings has been placed on record by the defendant to substantiate its claim of persistent poor performance of the plaintiff.
26. On the point of "Bonus" - the increment letter dated 07.05.2013, Ex. PW-1/1, shows "bonus" as "annual benefit"
and bonus/ex-gratia is shown to be payable "as and when declared." The plaintiff has not placed on record any document to show when or if any payment of bonus was declared by the defendant company. The Ex.PW-1/1, therefore, does not by itself establish that bonus had actually become due or payable to the plaintiff as a matter of right.
27. On Earned Leaves - Mark-B - the pay slip filed by the plaintiff, remained unproved since its original was not produced, record was not summoned and secondary evidence was not led. In any case, Mark-B shows earned leave "EL"
balance as zero. No employment terms, leave policy, or record from the defendant were summoned to establish that the plaintiff had any entitlement to earned leave encashment/reimbursement upon resignation. Further, during his cross examination, the plaintiff was unable to even state the exact number of earned leaves availed by him and balance earned leaves. In absence of such details and definite leave policy, plaintiff has failed to establish that he was entitled to receive earned leave encashment/reimbursement upon his resignation from defendant company.
28. Other documentary evidences of plaintiff - Ex. PW-1/3, the resignation-cum-notice dated 07.04.2014, shows that the plaintiff sought to be relieved at the end of the month and to hand over company documents and property. Ex. PW-1/D3 -
Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2026.04.01 Suit No. 457/2017 Ajay Mamgain vs. PEPS Industries Pvt. Ltd. 19/25 15:47:51 +0530
- 20 -
the minutes of meeting dated 22.04.2014 - state that Mr. Ajay (plaintiff) would hand over company belongings, including laptop with charger, on 30.04.2014 as his last working day. Ex. PW-1/4 is the letter dated 03.05.2014 certifying receipt of the laptop with charger from the plaintiff. Ex. PW-1/6 contains the e-mail dated 03.05.2014 from the plaintiff stating that it was his last day in PEPS and the reply dated 06.05.2014 wishing him well show that plaintiff exited cordially from defendant company. Further, the laptop handing over letter - Ex. PW-1/4 - also shows that plaintiff was working in defendant company till 03.05.2014. Ex. PW-
1/7 is the e-mail dated 07.05.2014 from Ashwani Gulati wishing him a brighter future. Ex. PW-1/5 contains the plaintiff's request for his full and final amount and the reply saying "No issue," but Ex. PW-1/5 is a printout of an email and remained inadmissible for want of a certificate under S.65B, Indian Evidence Act. Ex. PW-1/8 is the legal notice, service of which is not disputed.
29. On the defendant's side, Ex. DW-2/1 is the list of pending C- Forms, but it does not by itself show that the pendency was solely due to the plaintiff's fault. Further, as per admitted emails - [Ex. PW-1/D-1 (colly.)], C-forms were pending even prior to 2012 - for the years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12. The defendant's counsel confronted the PW-1/plaintiff with these emails. Plaintiff joined defendant company on 04.04.2012. Thus, in the document filed and relied upon by the defendant itself, it can be seen that C-forms were pending even prior to plaintiff joining the defendant company.
30. The defendant has also relied upon Ex. DW-1/2 (Target vs Lalit Kumar Digitally signed by Suit No. 457/2017 Ajay Mamgain vs. PEPS Industries Pvt. Ltd. 20/25 Lalit Kumar Date: 2026.04.01 15:47:56 +0530
- 21 -
Achievement table) to show that the plaintiff failed to meet targets. The table in Ex. DW-1/2 purportedly shows the targets given to the plaintiff and achieved by him during October 2013 (table apparently bears a typo - as it says Oct.14) to March 2014. On its face, the table records month- wise targets and actual achievements of the plaintiff in two segments: Quantity and Value (in lakhs). 30.1. For the six months shown, the plaintiff's quantity target was 1886, against which achievement was 428, shown as 23%; in terms of value, the target was 191.25 lakhs, against achievement of 38.89 lakhs, shown as 20%. Month-wise, the table reflects relatively low achievement in every month (October, 2013 to March, 2014), with the highest quantity achievement shown in January 2014 at 101 against 276 and the highest value achievement also in January 2014 at 9.26 lakhs against 26.25 lakhs. The table also shows that the achievement percentages were not uniform and remained well below the target across all months from October, 2013 to March, 2014. 30.2. DW-1/2 reflects that the plaintiff's achievement was well below target for the period of October 2013 to March 2014. Not even 50% of target was achieved - either in quantity or in value - in any of the months from October, 2013 to March, 2014. Only 26%, 8%, 30%, 37%, and 21% targets were achieved in quantity in this duration, respectively. Only 21%, 10%, 24%, 35%, 18% targets were achieved in value (in lakhs) in this duration, respectively. However, the defendant has not placed on record any terms of employment to show that Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Suit No. 457/2017 Ajay Mamgain vs. PEPS Industries Pvt. Ltd. 21/25 Kumar Date:
2026.04.01 15:48:01 +0530
- 22 -
achievement of 100% targets was a condition precedent for payment of salary. 30.3. Further, even as per the defendant's own document and pleadings, the plaintiff did not achieve targets for several months prior to March 2014 (October, 2013 to February, 2014 - as per Ex. DW-1/2), yet no case is made that salary for those months was withheld. Why did the defendant pay any salary to the plaintiff for the months of October, 2013 to February, 2014 if plaintiff did not achieve his targets during these months? - the defendant does not say. Thus, withholding salary only for the months of March & April, 2014 on the ground of non-
achievement of targets is purely arbitrary, whimsical and intended to deny plaintiff his entitlement. 30.4. Thus, in short, DW-1/2 in itself, though indicative of plaintiff's performance levels, does not establish that salary was contingent upon target achievement or that failure to achieve targets disentitled the plaintiff from salary. Ex. DW-1/2 shows low target achievement over the last six months, but the defendant did not place any terms of employment to show that salary was conditional upon 100% target achievement, nor did it explain why salary for October 2013 to February 2014 was not in issue if the same principle was to be applied.
31. Lastly, DW-1 claimed that "company paid penalties where C-Forms could not be collected, including for 2012-13 and 2013-14" and that "company paid huge penalties in sales tax"
for non-collection of C-Forms by the plaintiff. However, no evidence has been placed on record by the defendant to Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
Suit No. 457/2017 Ajay Mamgain vs. PEPS Industries Pvt. Ltd. 22/25 2026.04.01 15:48:05 +0530
- 23 -
substantiate this claim. There is no evidence to show the extent of loss suffered by the defendant due to non- performance of plaintiff or how much, if any, penalty was paid by the defendant, when it was paid, etc.
32. On a combined appreciation of the pleadings and evidence of both sides, on a scale of balance of probabilities, the plaintiff has established his employment, resignation, continuation till 03.05.2014, and the fact that salary for the relevant period was payable but not paid by the defendant. At the same time, the plaintiff has not been able to prove an enforceable contractual entitlement to bonus as a matter of right or to earned leave encashment, because the documentary record itself shows bonus as dependent on declaration and plaintiff did not prove any such declaration; and plaintiff also did not prove earned leave balance, earned leave policy of defendant or encashment terms. The defendant has shown that the plaintiff's performance was below the targets placed on record, but it has not shown any contractual stipulation that non-achievement of targets would disentitle the plaintiff to salary already earned. The defendant's attempt to justify non-payment of salary on the ground of non-performance and non-collection of C- Forms is therefore not made out from the record as it stands.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS
33.In view of above analysis and discussion, this Court returns its findings on the issue no.1, as follows.
34. Issue no.1 - "Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the money decree as prayed for along with interest, if yes, then at what rate and for which period? OPP" - is partly answered in Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2026.04.01 15:48:10 Suit No. 457/2017 Ajay Mamgain vs. PEPS Industries Pvt. Ltd. 23/25 +0530
- 24 -
affirmative, in favor of plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to salary for March 2014, April 2014 and 3 days of May 2014, because the employment and continuation till 03.05.2014 stand proved and the defendant has failed to show any contractual basis for withholding salary. However, the claim for bonus fails because Ex. PW-1/1 shows bonus only "as and when declared," and no declaration or proof of actual entitlement has been produced. The claim for earned leave also fails because Mark-B remained unproved, shows EL balance as zero, and no employment terms, EL policy or leave record were produced by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the suit of plaintiff succeeds only in part.
35. The plaintiff is entitled to interest on the decreed amount, though the claim for 12% per annum is not supported by any proved contractual term on record. However, it is deemed appropriate to award a reasonable rate of interest, i.e., @ 8% per annum.
CONCLUSION
36. In view of the pleadings, oral evidence, and documentary record, this Court holds that the plaintiff has proved his employment, resignation, continuation till 03.05.2014, and his entitlement to salary for the relevant period. The defendant has failed to prove that salary could be withheld merely because the plaintiff did not achieve the targets or because C- Forms remained pending. At the same time, the plaintiff has not proved his entitlement to bonus and earned leave encashment. The suit, therefore, deserves to be partly decreed.
Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2026.04.01 15:48:15 +0530 Suit No. 457/2017 Ajay Mamgain vs. PEPS Industries Pvt. Ltd. 24/25
- 25 -
RELIEF
37. The suit is partly decreed. The defendant is directed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,09,023/- towards salary for March 2014, April 2014 and 3 days of May 2014, within 30 days from the date of this judgment. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the said amount from the date of filing of the suit till realization. The claims towards bonus and earned leave are declined.
COST
38. Considering that the plaintiff has been constrained to pursue the present litigation for almost nine years for recovery of his salary, he is awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards costs of the suit. Defendant is directed to pay the same within 30 days from the date of this judgment.
39. Decree sheet to be prepared accordingly.
40.File be consigned to Record Room after compliance.
Digitally signedby Lalit Kumar Lalit Date:
Kumar 2026.04.01 (This judgment contains 25 15:48:25 +0530 pages and each page has been signed by the undersigned) (LALIT KUMAR) Civil Judge-02, West, Announced in the open Court Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 30.03.2026 Suit No. 457/2017 Ajay Mamgain vs. PEPS Industries Pvt. Ltd. 25/25