Bangalore District Court
Satish Kumar vs Vmware Inc on 29 October, 2024
Judgment 1 O.S. No. 5808/2018
KABC010221532018
THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
COURT HALL NO.40
PRESENT: K. Vidya B.Sc., M.A., LL.M.,
XXXIX Additional City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
O.S.No.5808/2018
Dated this the 29th day of October, 2024
BETWEEN:
Plaintiff:
Mr. Satish Kumar
S/o C. Subramani,
Judgment 2 O.S. No. 5808/2018
Aged about 46 years,
No.82, 1st Main road,
Mico Colony, BTM II Stage,
Bengaluru - 570076.
(By Sri.S.B. Lakshmi., Advocate)
Defendant:
1. Vmware Inc.,
(Deleted vide vide order
dated 29/07/2021)
2. VM Ware Software India
Private Limited
(CINU72900KA2007PTC042047)
Kalyani Vista,
Sy.No.1651/1 & 165/17,
Doresanipalya,
4th Phase, JP Nagar,
Bengaluru - 76.
Represented by its Director,
Human Resources
Department
(Appointing authority)
Judgment 3 O.S. No. 5808/2018
3. VM ware Software India
Private Limited
(CINU72900KA2007PTC042047)
Kalyani Vista,
Sy.No.1651/1 & 165/17,
Doresanipalya,
4th Phase, JP Nagar,
Bengaluru - 76.
Represented by its Director,
GSS India Limited
(D.1 - Deleted,
D.2 & 3 by Sri.Mohammed
Shammer., Advocates)
Date of Institution of 08/08/2018
Suit
Nature of Suit Declaration and Damages
Date of Commencement 28/06/2022
of Recording of evidence
Date of which Judgment 29/10/2024
was pronounced
Judgment 4 O.S. No. 5808/2018
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
06 02 21
(K.VIDYA)
XXXIX Additional City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
JUDGMENT
That, the instant suit is filed by the Plaintiff as against Defendant Company represented by its Director seeking reliefs assailed infra:-
Declare that the order of Termination dated 27th April 2018 is illegal, bad in law and Null & Void.
Judgment 5 O.S. No. 5808/2018
Direct the Defendants
Jointly, Individually and
severally liable to pay
damages to the tune of
₹85,50,000/- towards the loss of pay on account of compelled loss of employment as damages for the mental agony, special damages, notice charges et all with the interest @12% per annum from the date of realization.
Judgment 6 O.S. No. 5808/2018 Direct the Defendants to jointly, individually and severally to pay the damages to the sum of ₹04,00,000/- per mensem to the the Plaintiff along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the suit of date till date of realization.
2. The Factual Matrix circumventing Plaint averments is as follows:-
I. That, Defendant No.1 is Multinational National Judgment 7 O.S. No. 5808/2018 Company, wherein the Defendant No.2 company is registered in India akin to the provisions contemplated under Companies Act, wherein Defendant No.2 & 3 unit at aforementioned address cited in cause title depicted at Bengaluru is having its business that provides cloud computing and platform virtualization software and services, that the Defendant No.1 has Judgment 8 O.S. No. 5808/2018 business in different part of the globe and has established offices in global scenario, be that as it may at the time of issuing notice the Defendants were residing in premises No.192A, now changed to Sy.No.1651/1 & 165/17, Doresanipalya, IV Phase, Jaiprakash Nagar, Bengaluru -5600 76.
II. That, Defendant No.2 & 3 had appointed the Plaintiff Judgment 9 O.S. No. 5808/2018 as Senior Manager, Technical support in its Bengaluru office with conditions contained therein, that the Defendant No.2 & 3 are controlled by Defendant No.1, the Defendant No.2 is the appointing authority of Plaintiff. That, the salary of the Plaintiff as of 09.01.2014 was at ₹ 45,50,600/ (Rupees forty-
five lakhs fifty thousand six Judgment 10 O.S. No. 5808/2018 hundred sixty only) which is termed as cost to company (CTC) as stated in the revised compensation statement.
III. That, after confirmation of services of Plaintiff, the probation period was fix ed as six months from the date of initial appointment. That from 10.02.2014 till passing of termination letter dated 27.04.2018 the Plaintiff discharged his duties Judgment 11 O.S. No. 5808/2018 diligently, honestly and meticulously to the satisfaction of his superiors, his name though was recommended for elevation but was not materialized. That, the Plaintiff has neither committed any irregularities, mis-appropriation nor mis- conduct as alleged in the termination notice by Defendants and needless to state that Plaintiff has not involved in any criminal Judgment 12 O.S. No. 5808/2018 activities as per the employment rules and regulations as stated, there are no valid reasons to terminate the Plaintiff from service by Defendants and the accentuating circumstances are assailed in the inferior paragraphs. IV. That, there was covenant to the effect that after conclusion of the probationary period, the employment of Plaintiff Judgment 13 O.S. No. 5808/2018 would be confirmed by giving sixty days written notice to opposite party and in furtherance to this it was endowed that pay of salary of Plaintiff' was in lieu of part or all of notice period.
V. That, further the employment of Plaintiff howsoever, would be terminated immediately and without notice at any time if Plaintiff engage in serious misconduct, willfully or materially breach the Judgment 14 O.S. No. 5808/2018 agreement or charged with any criminal offence which in the reasonable opinion of the company gets sabotaged, undermined or bringing the customers, partners or related entities into disrepute.
VI. That, the above said condition is not violated by Plaintiff, before terminating the Plaintiff from services, the Defendants did not issue sixty days notice to Plaintiff, which termination notice Judgment 15 O.S. No. 5808/2018 came to issued on 27.04.2018. after issuing notice against discrimination, work place harassment and criminal intimidation on account of support extended by the Plaintiff to a complaint with respect to sexual grievance.
VII. That upon receipt of notice at Plaintiff's end the Defendants had sent untenable reply to the Plaintiff on 27.4.2018. Judgment 16 O.S. No. 5808/2018 VIII. That, out of 120 employees in global scenario, the Plaintiff name is shown as redundant in Bengaluru branch region, which is very well within the knowledge of the Defendants. IX. That, it is needless to state that the untoward incident of sexual harassment of lady employee of Defendant Company brought its notice will not tantamount to serious misconduct.
Judgment 17 O.S. No. 5808/2018 X. That the Plaintiff at no point of time has neither made false and malicious claim against Defendants and nor demanded compensation on false grounds.
XI. That, the Plaintiff in fact had extended his support to woman employee who was sexually harassed by one of the senior director of the Defendants, ultimately the Plaintiff was blasphemed and victimized as scapegoat on Judgment 18 O.S. No. 5808/2018 account of which the Plaintiff sustained campaign to target him as a retribution which is in garb of workforce reduction and was schematically and psychotically harassed by Defendant No. 2 and 3 respectively, howsoever the Plaintiff had sent confidential fact to the Defendant No.1 through e-mail on 09/01/018 and 18/01/2018 respectively. XII. That, on 9.01.2018 the Defendant No. 2 and 3 had Judgment 19 O.S. No. 5808/2018 forcibly tried to take deed of separation and release deed from Plaintiff but the Plaintiff had not put his signature, wherein which in the termination letter dated 27.04.2018 word "discharge" is not used, wherein the word termination is used and further the Plaintiff was informed that (Indian National Rupees) INR ₹1,130,769 (termination payment) would be paid Judgment 20 O.S. No. 5808/2018 within seven days from the date of receipt of termination notice dated 27.4.2018 which was not in consonance with any of the particular clause of terms and conditions of appointment order.
XIII. That, letter of termination notice issued against the Plaintiff is arbitrary and neither charges were levelled nor inquiry was held against him.
Judgment 21 O.S. No. 5808/2018 XIV. That, there was no allegation against the Plaintiff of any sordid act as such be that as it may it can be gathered that he was performing and discharging his duties efficiently, diligently and meticulously moreso, had garnered leadership skills, and used to extract work from the employees who were working under him and was given maximum efficiency, under these circumstances, Judgment 22 O.S. No. 5808/2018 the order of termination issued against him without invoking clauses of appointment terms and conditions is illegal, high handed and arbitrary, moreso the work is available in the Defendant company and his work is being discharged by another Manager who was working in a different section. He is paid more or less the same salary as is being paid to the Plaintiff. However the Judgment 23 O.S. No. 5808/2018 new employees are still being hired/promoted.
XV. That no clause is mentioned in termination notice which is ultravires and is manifest that the employer has been given a right to hire an employee and remove his services with arbitrary and capricious rational motive, wherein which in the order of termination notice dated 27.4.2018 issued to the Plaintiff, there are no reference to the terms of appointment and conditions or Judgment 24 O.S. No. 5808/2018 applicable laws as on the date of termination notice.
Wherefore, it is explicit and manifest that the termination notice is arbitrarily and capriciously issued with unruly powers by Defendants to terminate the services of an employee with irrational, unreasonable and misconceived reasons.
XVI. That, the order of termination issued on the Plaintiff is in violation of Section 23 of Indian Contract Act and also article 21 Judgment 25 O.S. No. 5808/2018 of the Constitution of India and no arbitrary arbitrary powers are vested with the employer to terminate the service of an employee without any rhyme or reason on the basis of an alleged contract of service, such termination primafacie is illegal and unsustainable. Wherefore, the termination notice issued as against the Plaintiff is liable to be struck down being ultravires.
Consequently, the Plaintiff is entitled for retrieval and Judgment 26 O.S. No. 5808/2018 rehabilitation of all consequential benefits and promotion as he has been terminated akin to rules of appointment and regulations which is ultravires but also in contravention to Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.
XVII. That, the said termination clause virtually treats him as a bonded labour. It is required to be stated that non-arbitrariness is the very essence of the "Rule of Law on parity" is the foundation of the civilized and Judgment 27 O.S. No. 5808/2018 organized society. But, unfortunately, the manner in which the services of the Plaintiff has been terminated highhandedly is a case of arbitrary exercise of power as unruly horse.
XVIII. That, a perusal of the service condition, more particularly termination clause reveals that the said rule coined by the Defendant Management is purely arbitrary in nature in terminating the services of an employee according to its Judgment 28 O.S. No. 5808/2018 whims and fancies. Wherefore the termination clause mentioned in the appointment order is illegal, arbitrary and sheer violation of the provisions contemplated under Section 23 of Indian Contract Act.
XIX. That, that Plaintiff is in his mid fourty crossed 46 years and at this juncture he will not be able to get employed elsewhere on account of his age factor. XX. That, after his termination he had made his promptitude effort Judgment 29 O.S. No. 5808/2018 to get alternate employment, but it had not enured any fruits on account of age crisis.
XXI. That, the Defendants did not have any grouse against the performance of the Plaintiff while he was in service.
XXII. That, the salary package of Plaintiff was fixed at Indian National Rupees Forty five lakhs fifty thousand six hundred sixty eight per year excluding all other benefits coupled with promotion.
Judgment 30 O.S. No. 5808/2018 XXIII. That a rule or a clause in the order of appointment which enables an employer " to hire and to fire" has been characterized by the Hon'ble Apex Court as "Henry VIII Rule"
and such rules does not hold place in any of the service conditions. The Apex Court in umpteen decisions has struck down such rule of inequity as it is opposed to public policy. XXIV. That, the Plaintiff is permanent employee, his probationary period of service has been Judgment 31 O.S. No. 5808/2018 declared as satisfactory and he was serving in confirmation with service conditions without any blemishes.
XXV. that, the Plaintiff intoto has worked for three years ten months loyally and faithfully and found to be satisfactory and was accoladed verbally for his contribution. Under these circumstances, the order of termination is wholly arbitrary, illegal, unjust, irrational and tantamount to prejudicial and invidious discrimination and Judgment 32 O.S. No. 5808/2018 also opposed to the policy of international Labour law, more so pertaining to the service conditions. The object of international labour law and international labour organization is to co-ordinate and to send reports on various matters to the international Labour court organization. Under these circumstances without tinge of doubt in respect of services of the Plaintiff it is crystal that he is Judgment 33 O.S. No. 5808/2018 terminated with malafide intention.
XXVI. That, the termination of the services of the Plaintiff is also contrary to directive principles of state policy enshrined under Articles 41, 42 and 43 of the Constitution of India. It cannot be disputed that in India, labour is the seller's commodity, The policy to hire and to fire is diametric to the norms of industrial adjudication. Judgment 34 O.S. No. 5808/2018 XXVII. That, the Management cannot hire and fire the workman at it whims and fancies without any justifiable cause or without holding an inquiry. In the instant case the Plaintiff being permanent employee, was accoladed and garnered with rewards, good performance incentive stakes, and salary increments regularly throughout his employment moreso, there were no adverse remarks engraved against him. Judgment 35 O.S. No. 5808/2018 XXVIII. That the reasons mentioned in the termination notice is sheer malafide, unjust and unsustainable.
XXIX. That, the Plaintiff was
appointed to perform key
personnel management
activities such as hiring,
training, career development
and performance of evaluation and appraisals of technical support manager and engineers, responsible for enterprises support teams coming under the suzerain of Defendant No.1, Judgment 36 O.S. No. 5808/2018 wherein the Plaintiff was monitoring same with entrepreneurship and maintain amicable technical relationships with strategic partners and enterprise customers, lead team of managers, its leaders and engineers who are responsible in managing customer incidents and escalation by providing technical support to customers via incoming customer contact to Global support services, focusing on solutions for various problems whereupon Judgment 37 O.S. No. 5808/2018 collaborate and interact with cross functional such as filed and professional service, build business relationship with peers in other regions and manage the global operations very efficiently, prepare call center performance report by collecting, analyzing and summarizing date and trends by identifying and resolving problems, preparing and completing action plans, completing system audits, managing system, process Judgment 38 O.S. No. 5808/2018 improvement and quality assurance programs and exploring opportunities to add value to job accomplishments etc. XXX. That, Law of land explicates that the termination of services of an employee should be only after giving sixty days prior notice failing which it would be ultravires to the provisions and aspirations ennunciated and enshrined in Constitution of India.
Judgment 39 O.S. No. 5808/2018 XXXI. That before issue of termination notice the Plaintiff had got issued legal notice to the Defendants calling upon the propriety for initiating scurrilous action, because of the said reasons the Plaintiff came to be terminated illegally, hence finding no other alternative the Plaintiff was constrained to file instant seeking suitable redress.
3. That, pursuance to issuance of suit summons Defendant No. 1 to 3 appeared before court, wherein which on Judgment 40 O.S. No. 5808/2018 maintaining the Application titled I.A. NO. II by Defendant No.1 under Order I Rule 10 vide order dated 29/07/2021 Defendant No.1 came to be deleted accordingly, wherein Defendant No.2 & 3 appeared to their Counsel Sri.Mohammed Shammer and filed memorandum of Written Statement.
4. That, at the behest the Defendant No.2 & 3 whilst conceding the factum of relationship of employer and employee and appointment of the plaintiff to its Company denied all averments and contentions made in the plaint by the Plaintiff, and urged that the Judgment 41 O.S. No. 5808/2018 unsubstantiated allegations made by the Plaintiff by suppressing materials facts and misrepresenting the factuals and the true version of events is reverberated and retributted with ulterior motto of the Plaintiff making illegal gains by way of unjust enrichment by building fallacious castle on the strength of figment of imagination, though happening of each event was made known to the Plaintiff and is very well within the knowledge of the Plaintiff.
5. That the Defendant has acted wholly in accordance with law akin to the contract arraigned between the Plaintiff and the Judgment 42 O.S. No. 5808/2018 Defendant, wherein which the suit is mischievous and frivolous in entirety, which is filed without any basis in law or fact and is liable to be dismissed in limine with heavy costs to be imposed on the Plaintiff.
6. That, the Defendant has filed this instant suit to harass and undermine to reputation of Defendant in global scenario with wreak of vengeance and the sole attempt of the Plaintiff is to lead astray the instant court by making it to believe that the services of the Plaintiff was terminated with an hidden agenda of conspiracy and sabotage, moreso the Judgment 43 O.S. No. 5808/2018 Plaintiff is very well aware of the fact that he was terminated due to redundancy in role. The Defendant, as part of an exercise to bring in greater efficiency and to centralize its organization structure, had identified multiple roles as redundant, one of which was the Plaintiff's role, in the said walk the Defendant had scheduled meeting on 9th January 2018 with the Plaintiff to discuss the redundancy of his role, wherein which after the minutes of meeting, the Plaintiff having come to know of his imminent termination due to redundancy, and in order to Judgment 44 O.S. No. 5808/2018 unscrupulously extend his employment, for the first time made false allegations with personal vendetta of sexual harassment of female employee by the superiors in Defendant Company, who was allegedly perpetrated by other employees of the Defendant, which had lead the Defendant to investigate the false allegations and whereupon extending the Plaintiff's employment during the period of investigation by three additional months.
7. That, it is needless to say, that Plaintiff was monetarily benefited from such false accusations and allegations since he had Judgment 45 O.S. No. 5808/2018 received three months additional salary without reporting to work at that juncture, in addition to two months notice pay under the contract of employment was also complied.
8. That, the Defendant on the other hand, to part on the best terms, had offered the Plaintiff an opportunity to resign on his own, in consideration of an exgratia payment, which the Plaintiff outratedly rejected and was hell bent on making false allegations of a presupposed and purported targeted campaign of allegedly supporting a woman employee in unwarranted and vituperative sexual Judgment 46 O.S. No. 5808/2018 harassment complaint against another senior employee of the Defendant. Based on the allegation of a targeted campaign, an investigation was initiated in accordance with the policies, which was ultimately closed due to the Plaintiffs non-participation and non co-operation in substantiating his allegations and his indifference attitude and reciprocation to the investigation after making the complaint and during the investigation had caused a ray of suspicion, wherein which the Plaintiff did not report to work but received salary from the Defendant. It is evident now that the Plaintiff's Judgment 47 O.S. No. 5808/2018 alleged claim of a targeted campaign was baseless and just an excuse to unjustly benefit himself.
9. That the Plaintiff has approached this Court with unclean hands by failing to disclose the out-and-out true facts and circumstances in connection with the subject matter with the intent to mislead this Court. Without prejudice to the foregoing explications, The Defendant has setup its defence and assailed in categorical terms infra:-
1. That, the Defendant had appointed the Plaintiff as a Judgment 48 O.S. No. 5808/2018 senior manager, Technical Support by way of an appointment letter dated 2nd January 2014, with effect from 10 February 2014. The Plaintiff worked in the aforementioned Global Support Services division of the Defendant. The Plaintiff's responsibilities in this role included managing many of Defendant Company so as VM ware India's technical support teams, developing and implementing practices to measure the effective of Judgment 49 O.S. No. 5808/2018 technical support, work with the sales team to enhance support systems et all intoto, the role of Plaintiff was that of a supervisor and around twenty-five employees used to directly reported to him during the course of employment at the Defendant.
2. That, the grouped companies of this Defendant undertook reorganizing activities to consolidate its organization restructure and power to increased efficiency which would Judgment 50 O.S. No. 5808/2018 land up certain roles redundant from time to time. In cases of termination on account of redundancy, under law the employer's obligations are to honor the contractual terms.
3. That, during December 2017, as a part of the Defendant's global goal towards centralizing and rationalizing resources, the Defendant had refocused its investments, consolidated different teams and restructured its activities. the group companies had moved into a Judgment 51 O.S. No. 5808/2018 three-global theater model,based on a model of three regions / theatres i.e., the Aisa Pacific Japan (APJ / Asia Pacific), Europe Middle East and Africa (EMEA) and North and South America (NASA) regions. The group companies of the consolidated teams in these respective regions which were working at the same business hours. towards this end, certain teams amongst them were deemed redundancy, which resulted in a change in the level Judgment 52 O.S. No. 5808/2018 of management within the Defendant's company. This further resulted in a need to re-
organize and restructure the employees role within the Defendant so as to ensure and extract maximum output and efficiency.
4. That, the Plaintiff was managing
(i) a customer team, with 16 contractor technical support engineers, (ii) the weekend team of the APJ region with 16 technical support engineers and one manager, and (iii) the Judgment 53 O.S. No. 5808/2018 software development kit (SDK) team with 7 technical support engineers. since the customer team was not meeting its business goals and performance standards, the leadership team of the GSS division decided to exit from the Agreement with the customer and carry out these functions under the respective teams of the APJ, EMEA or NASA regions. Further, to optimize the engineer-to- manager ratio, the weekend team of the APJ region was Judgment 54 O.S. No. 5808/2018 aligned to the leader managing the entire operations of the APJ region. Further, the third team, i.e., the SDK team, was split between the teams of the APJ and NASA regions. Due to this restructuring, the Plaintiff's role with the Defendant had become redundant as there was no other role for the Plaintiff in the Defendant company. Pertinently, the roles of about 70 employees of the Defendant were eliminated pursuant to the re- organizing in India. This re- Judgment 55 O.S. No. 5808/2018 structuring was effected across the Defendant's group companies' offices in the Asia Pacific region and about 120 employees roles had become redundant in the Asia Pacific region. Contrary to the Plaintiff's allegations, there was no personal targeting or glutinous vendetta as alleged against him. The role of the Plaintiff was rendered redundant as per the normal practices of the Defendant.
Judgment 56 O.S. No. 5808/2018
5. Consequently, on 9th January 2018, the Defendant scheduled a meeting with the Plaintiff at 12.30 pm to discuss those agendas, wherein which the Plaintiff was informed of the elimination of his role due to redundancy and that it would result in the termination of his employment by the Defendant.
6. That, the Defendant had also shared with the Plaintiff, the standard formats of documents prepared for processing the termination of employment of Judgment 57 O.S. No. 5808/2018 the employees whose roles had become redundant in light of the re-organization. In addition, the Plaintiff was also offered the option to voluntarily resign from the Defendant and enter into a release / settlement agreement in lieu of an ex-gratia payment that was to be paid in addition to the statutory and contractual payments that would have been payable in case of termination.
7. That, there is anathema of practice of the reflective of the generosity of the Defendant with Judgment 58 O.S. No. 5808/2018 bonafide intentions, this option is provided to all employees whose roles have become redundant. While in any event the Defendant was entitled to terminate the Plaintiff's employment due to redundancy in accordance with applicable law, the purpose of the meeting was to provide the Plaintiff with a bonafide opportunity to separate on amicable terms with additional payments to assist and ease his transition, however, the Plaintiff chose not Judgment 59 O.S. No. 5808/2018 to accept either of the options put forth by the Defendant and left the meeting ended about 15 minutes.
8. That, after meeting, on the very same day i.e., on 9 th January 2018, the Plaintiff had sent two e-mails, one, to certain employees of the Defendant stating that he was devastated to hear the news of re-
organization, and was left in lurch with emotional trauma, and sought to the effect that all communications be addressed to Judgment 60 O.S. No. 5808/2018 his personal email address second of which to the senior management of the Defendant's parent company, Vmware US making false allegations of targeting, vendetta and retribution and in the said walk for the first time, the Plaintiff had made vituperative complaint in color tainted with "systemic campaign of retribution" that he had allegedly been subject to harassment for over the past two years.
Judgment 61 O.S. No. 5808/2018
9. That, the alleged campaign of retribution was on account of his support given to a woman employee who had filed a sexual harassment complaint against a senior employee of the Defendant during May 2016 and in furtherance to this the Plaintiff had set out allegations against other employees of the Defendant in respect of targeting and harassing the Plaintiff and claimed that his termination was in furtherance to sabotage and personal vendetta and campaign Judgment 62 O.S. No. 5808/2018 against him which was orchestrated by other employees.
10. That, the complaint came as a surprise to the Defendant since it was the very first time the Plaintiff had made any allegations of this nature against employees of the Defendant, and in the said context though the Plaintiff alleges that the retribution has been going on for over two years and that he had been suffering since two years, which was orchestrated for the first time after the Plaintiff had been informed of the redundancy Judgment 63 O.S. No. 5808/2018 of his role, the Defendant, as with all complaints of retribution, took the matter seriously and initiated investigation of the allegations. On the very next day, i.e., on 10 January 2018, without knowledge of the Plaintiff's complaint to Defendant No.1, the Defendant has sent an email to the Plaintiff asking him to meet to conclude discussions of the reorganization, for which the Plaintiff had replied through email on the very same day, Judgment 64 O.S. No. 5808/2018
11. That, further making allegations of actions of bad faith, hostile environment and corruption and further claimed that some alleged retribution began after his support to a complaint of sexual harassment.
12. That, the Plaintiff has been wrongly alleged that his work email had been disabled since the meeting on 9th January 2018 and in furtherance to this it is worth to note that the Defendant had in fact investigated a complaint of sexual harassment which was Judgment 65 O.S. No. 5808/2018 merely hoax of bomb situation, which is created with figment of imagination to tarnish the image of Defendant in global scenario.
13. That, the Plaintiff who is manipulative has fabricated false story by bringing the doctrine of Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in Constitution and also embellished his interpretation of thwarting moves cannot be believed by any common person and has also brought facta probandum things which need to Judgment 66 O.S. No. 5808/2018 be proved during trial in the very Plaint.
14. That,the other allegations made by Plaintiff are unscrupulous and sans wrath of truthfulness which does require neither justification nor explanation and moreso there is no cause of action for filing suit and has not made feasible and justifiable grounds for grant of damages as he has not properly valued the suit plaint akin to the provisions contemplated under Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, further more the Judgment 67 O.S. No. 5808/2018 instant Plaint stands to be rejected at the threshold as this court sans jurisdiction to try the dispute interse which is filed with figment of imagination, hence on these amongst other grounds prayed for dismissal of suit with exemplary costs.
10. That based on the material proposition asserted by Plaintiff and defence setup by Defendant, the following issues were coined by the Learned Predecessor in Office which are extracted infra:-
Judgment 68 O.S. No. 5808/2018 :ISSUES:
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that he has been illegally terminated from services by issuing notice dated 27/04/2018?
2. Whether Defendants Proves that this court has no Jurisdiction to try the suit?
3. Whether the court fee paid by the Plaintiff is sufficient?
Judgment 69 O.S. No. 5808/2018
4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for total damages of ₹89,50,000/-?
5. What Order or Decree?
11. That, during Trial Plaintiff in order to bring home the bone of contention got examined perse as P.W.1 and supporting witness as P.W.2 and in furtherance to oral evidence, during ocular evidence got exhibited documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 & Ex.P11 through PW2 Mr. Nalin Pandey.
Judgment 70 O.S. No. 5808/2018
12. Per contra, during rebuttal on behalf of Defendants, Sri. Ranjit Kumar Singh, being Director and authorized Signatory of Defendant No.2 & 3 got examined perse as DW1 during oral evidence and in furtherance to oral evidence during ocular evidence got exhibited documents atEx.D1 to Ex.D16 and closed its side.
13. That, Learned counsel for Plaintiff Smt. S.B.Lakshmi., who beside forceful arguments interalia maintained memorandum of written arguments and and Learned Counsel for Defendants Ms.Lavanya besides oral arguments who Judgment 71 O.S. No. 5808/2018 also maintained memorandum of written argument along with citation titled and cited infra.
14. That, after perusal of oral and documentary evidence coupled with the arguments addressed by Learned Counsel this court answer the issues as infra :-
Issue No.1: - Does not survive for consideration Issue No.2 :- In the Affirmative (in light of discussions) Issue No.3:- Does not survive for Consideration.
Issue No.4:- In the Negative Judgment 72 O.S. No. 5808/2018 Issue No.5 - As per final order for following :-
:R E A S O N S:
15. Issue No. 1 to 4:- As the aforementioned Issues coined by Learned Predecessor in office is primordial and intricacies are binding in nature they are taken together for consideration to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
16. At the onset, it is vital to state that there is no dispute in respect of the then Employer and Employee Relationship, so as Defendant and Judgment 73 O.S. No. 5808/2018 Plaintiff, but the crux of crudity oscillates in respect of illegal termination of Plaintiff in the guise of redundancy in the role bestowed to the Plaintiff as he had come to rescue of the female employee who was inflicted to sexual harassment by one of the superior which was used as a scaffold when the Plaintiff had took lead and came to rescue, furthermore he was massacred by ruining the destiny in the name of redundancy without any cogent reasons leaving Plaintiff in the lurch though he had Judgment 74 O.S. No. 5808/2018 garnered accolades from all corners and circles such as fellow colleagues, Employers and diplomats, when situation stood so, it was incumbent upon the Defendant to akin and abide to its letter of commitment in letter and spirit.
17. That, during trial in order to bring home the bone of contention Plaintiff perse got examined as PW1and deposed in consonance with Plaint averments, and in order to corroborate his case got examined one another supporting witness as PW2, Judgment 75 O.S. No. 5808/2018 and in addition to this during ocular evidence got exhibited documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 and through PW2 got exhibited two documents at Ex.P10 & 11 and closed his side, wherein Ex.P1 is the Appointment letter issued by Defendant Company vide dated 2nd January 2014, which would come into effect from 17th February 2014 along with the cost to company, Ex.P2 is the Termination Notice issued by Defendant Company to Plaintiff on 27th April 2018 who was Senior Manager, technical Support at that point of time Judgment 76 O.S. No. 5808/2018 who was paid as sum of ₹1,130,769/- towards full settlement, Ex.P3 is the office copy of the Legal notice issued during February 2018 by Plaintiff to Defendant Company, Ex.P4 is the reply notice caused by Defendant Company on 27th April 2018 wherein which in the said reply letter it is explicitly stated that to outreach global goal had restructured the resources and had identified few posts as redundant and in furtherance to this it was very well made known to the stake holders at the earliest, wherein Judgment 77 O.S. No. 5808/2018 Plaintiff was one amongst them and very soon the Plaintiff had caught glimpse of the sabotage and hidden agenda of sacking Plaintiff from services of Defendant as he had come to the rescue of victim of sexual harassment inflicted to female employee, Ex.P5 to Ex.P8 comprises exchange of emails in respect of official communication dated 09/01/2018 and 18/01/2018 respectively, Ex.P8 is document styled Deed of Separation and Release which is accompanied with Ex.P9 Certificate filed under Judgment 78 O.S. No. 5808/2018 Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act.Ex.P10 is original Pass Port and Ex.P11 is E.Visa of PW2 issued by competent authority.
18. That, per contra, the Defendant who had examined its authorized signatory as DW1 had deposed in consonance with Written Statement Averments, and in furtherance to oral evidence during ocular Evidence got exhibited documents at Ex.D1 to Ex.D17, wherein Ex.D1 comprise Appointment letter, Ex.D2 comprise e-mail dated 17/01/2018, Ex.D3 comprise e-mail Judgment 79 O.S. No. 5808/2018 conversation dated 17/01/2018 Ex.D4 comprise e-mail correspondence, Ex.D5 comprise copies of profile belonging to PW.1, Ex.D6 comprise mail correspondence of of the Plaintiff dated 10/01/2018, Ex.D7 comprise copy of the mail correspondence transpired between Plaintiff and investigator, Ex.D8 comprise investigators e-mail dated 25/01/2018, Ex.D9 comprise list of employees terminated along with Plaintiff, Ex.D10 comprise correspondence dated 02/02/2018, Judgment 80 O.S. No. 5808/2018 Ex.D11 comprise certificate filed under section Section 65B Indian Evidence Act, Ex.D12 comprise extract of board resolution, Ex.D13 is the Payslip issued for the month of April 2018, Ex.D14 comprise mail copy dated 23/03/2023, Ex.D15 comprise salary payment conformation letter, Ex.D16 comprise certificate filed under Sec.65A and 65B Indian Evidence Act.
19. That, before embarking on the other facets of case on hand, it becomes impeccable to state as to whether suit seeking relief of damages holds field in Judgment 81 O.S. No. 5808/2018 given set of circumstances when the Plaintiff has taken the corollary view of alleged sexual harassment inflicted on female employee by her superior further when very propriety of said illegal act was attacked and questioned by the Plaintiff he was sacked from service and the said unto wards incident was given colour of redundancy of non requirement of Plaintiff, at this juncture it becomes impeccable to give useful and profitable reading of the Special Enactment The Sexual Harassment of Judgment 82 O.S. No. 5808/2018 Women at Workplace (prevention, Prohibition and Redressal Act 2013 and in furtherance to the said act when the victim of sexual harassment logs complaint under section 9 of said Act, akin to procedure first the victim will be called for conciliation and further inquiry will be held in the alleged complaint and ultimately the internal committee shall place report, but in the given scenario, and viewed from any angle the said alleged mishap of sexual harassment, will neither come into aid or assistance of Judgment 83 O.S. No. 5808/2018 Plaintiff as he had no role to play in this regard, which fact is also candidly and vividly admitted by the Plaintiff during cross-examination, wherein he has categorically conceded the fact that he had shown caviler and lackdisiacal attitude when the internal committee headed by Mrs. Sudeshna Chatterjee had called for inquiry in the said regard after investigation and further conceded during cross- examination that he had not produced any cogent information of sexual harassment inflicted on the lady whom Judgment 84 O.S. No. 5808/2018 the Plaintiff claims to have been sexually harassed, and in furtherance to this during cross-examination in categorical terms has unequivocally stated that that the termination was not unilateral and the minutes of meeting was made known to him and was also fixed compensation towards his redundancy in job in the same tenor and rigor of other employees, by exercising its Power the Defendant Company had followed the procedural aspect without giving any rooms or latches, when situation stood so, it is Judgment 85 O.S. No. 5808/2018 un-understandable to court as to why the Plaintiff has taken such remote defence by approaching this Fora, without challenging same before competent Forum by exercising right of Writ, and hence invoking provisions under section 23 of Indian Contract Act on backdrop of Doctrine Quantum Meruit does not call for consideration, added to this though the Plaintiff has made all frantic efforts in examining corroborative witness to bring home the bone of contention taken by him, namely Nalin Pandey as PW2 the Judgment 86 O.S. No. 5808/2018 Plaintiff has miserably failed to cull out truth from the mouth of said witness, rather he has in categorical terms admitted that he is bereft of the knowledge as to why the Plaintiff was terminated and reasons behind it during cross-examination by Defendant, and in furtherance to this he has also reinforced the fact that he has no personal knowledge of work performance of Plaintiff between July 2015 to April 2018 and reason for his termination.
Judgment 87 O.S. No. 5808/2018
20. On contra, the Authorised signatory who has examined himself as DW1 on behalf of Defendant Company has successfully surpassed the litmus test of trial during rebuttal and has meticulously stated that there were no procedural lapses committed by the Defendant from inception to termination, which was well within the knowledge, hence it is not liable to pay any compensatory damages and the doors of this court is shut as there is neither tortious liability of payment of for damnum sine injuria and injuria Judgment 88 O.S. No. 5808/2018 sine damno, as the Plaintiff has crystally given gobye to the aspiration and intention of his suit claim, at this juncture assuming an hypothetical situation that the Plaintiff was so keen in protecting the interest of the purported sexually harassment women employment, he would have fought to the core in this regard and would be triumphant in bringing home truth, and thus it inferrs legally that Plaintiff has not dusted the cloud created in the minds of court, and in garb of suit for damages it trying to retaliate the Judgment 89 O.S. No. 5808/2018 Defendant which gave him honour and job and also compensated him monetary when he was terminated during redundancy, furthermore it is un understandable to court as to why the Plaintiff has come with suit claiming damages though there was augmentation of termination of certain jobs on account of redundancy, further more if in case if the Plaintiff was not made aware of the happenings and outcome of the minutes of meeting without revealing the Plaintiff the hidden agenda of throwing him to Judgment 90 O.S. No. 5808/2018 trash after squeezing and extracting hard labour, then the entire scenario would have lead to cause of action enuring fruits to Plaintiff, hence in absentia of said retrogressive hide and seek game played by the Plaintiff, the prayer of Plaintiff becomes nugatory which legal fiction cannot take its shelter under penumbra of Specific Relief Act.
21. The Learned Counsel for Plaintiff Ms. S.B.L. on the pedestal of Dicutm of Hon'ble Apex Court titled Niranjan Shankar Golikari Vs. The Century Judgment 91 O.S. No. 5808/2018 Spinning and Mfg. Co. LTD and cited in 1967 SCR (2) 378 forcefully argued on the stand Issue of vital documents relied before the court which is taken note of, further in second limb of arguments Learned Counsel intellectually regurgitated and enlightened the court that the illegal act of Defendant has left Plaintiff in lurch for the reasons that there is gross violation of the terms and conditions of the covenant and thereby it was constrained to seek the prayer assailed supra in the prayer column of Judgment 92 O.S. No. 5808/2018 Plaint as the Plaintiff is in his mid fourties and proximities of getting job is very less.
22. Per contra, besides written arguments learned counsel for Defendant relied on the following dicutum titled and cuted infra:-
• Binny Ltd., and others Vs Sadasivan and Others, AIR 2005 SC 3202 • GE Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd., Vs Tarun Bhargava, 190 (2012) DLT 185 Judgment 93 O.S. No. 5808/2018 • Satya Narain Garg Vs. DCM Ltd., and others ( 2012) 127 DRJ 216 • McDermott International Inc. Vs Burn Standard Co.Limited and Another (2006 ) 11 SCC 181 • Kailash Nath Associates Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Another (2015) 4 SCC 136 • Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs Off-Shore Enterprises Inc., (2011) 14 SCC 147 • Naresh Kumar Vs Hiroshi Maniwa and Others, 224 (2015) DLT 586 Judgment 94 O.S. No. 5808/2018 • S.S.Shetty Vs Bharat Nidhi Ltd., AIR 1958 SC 12 • Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs Union of India and Another (2000) 6 SCC 113 • B.L. Sreedhar Vs. K.M. Munireddy (2003) 2 SCC 355
23. That, from the foregoing deliberations made in superior paragraphs, having due regards it becomes explicable to state the the suit in present frame does not seek attention and the forceful arguments impressed upon by Learned Counsel for Plaintiff on the Judgment 95 O.S. No. 5808/2018 touch stone of the ruling relied during arguments does not hold field as the said salubrious ruling reverberates that suit is not maintainable in said frame as this court sans jurisdiction, hence Issue No.2 is answered in the Affirmative, Issue No.4 is answered in the Negative & Issue No.1 & 3 Does not survive for consideration.
24. Issue No.5:- For the reasons assigned on Issue No.1 to 4 and on the backdrop of discussions arraigned therein this court proceeds to pass following:-
Judgment 96 O.S. No. 5808/2018 :ORDER:
That, the suit filed by the Plaintiff seeking relief of Declaration to declare that the order of termination dated 27th April 2018 as null and void and further seeking damages by directing the Defendants to pay same individually, jointly and severally with allied rate of interest from the date of Judgment 97 O.S. No. 5808/2018 suit till its realization stands dismissed thereof in entirety.
Office to Draw decree accordingly.
(Directly dictated to the stenographer grade III over computer system, the computer script generated by her is corrected, rectified and revised by me, and then pronounced in open court on this the 29th day of October 2024) (K.VIDYA) XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY. Judgment 98 O.S. No. 5808/2018 ANNEXURES LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:-
PW.1 Mr. Satish Kumar PW.2 Mr.Nalin Pandey
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:-
Ex.P1 Appointment letter issued by Defendant Company vide dated 2nd January 2014 Ex.P2 Termination Notice issued by Defendant Company to Plaintiff on 27th April 2018 Judgment 99 O.S. No. 5808/2018 Ex.P3 Office copy of the Legal notice dated 09th February 2018 Ex.P4 Reply notice caused by Defendant Company on 27th April 2018 Ex.P5 to Exchange of emails in P7 respect of official communication dated 9th January 2018, 18/01/2018 and 09/01/2018 respectively Ex.P8 Deed of Separation and Release Ex.P9 Certificate filed under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P10 Original Pass Port Ex.P11 E.Visa of PW2. Judgment 100 O.S. No. 5808/2018 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:-
DW.1 Ranjit Kumar Singh LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:- Ex.D1 Appointment letter Ex.D2 E-mail dated 17/01/2018 Ex.D3 E-mail conversation dated 17/01/2018 Ex.D4 e-mail correspondence, Ex.D5 Copies of profile belonging to PW.1 Ex.D6 Mail correspondence of of the Plaintiff dated 10/01/2018 Judgment 101 O.S. No. 5808/2018 Ex.D7 Copy of the mail correspondence transpired between Plaintiff and investigator Ex.D8 Investigators e-mail dated 25/01/2018 Ex.D9 List of employees terminated along with Plaintiff Ex.D10 Correspondence dated 02/02/2018 Ex.D11 Certificate filed under section Section.65B Indian Evidence Act Ex.D12 Extract of board resolution Ex.D13 Payslip issued for the month of April 2018, Ex.D14 Mail copy dated 23/03/2023 Ex.D15 Salary payment conformation letter Judgment 102 O.S. No. 5808/2018 Ex.D16 Certificate filed under Sec.65A and 65B Indian Evidence Act. XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
Digitally
signed by
KALASHETTY
KALASHETTY VIDYA
VIDYA Date:
2024.10.30
15:26:57
+0530