Delhi District Court
Sh. Maninder Pal Singh vs M/S. North West Carrying Company on 23 July, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH VISHAL SINGH, CIVIL JUDGE9
(CENTRAL) : DELHI
SUIT NO. 52/13/11
UNIQUE ID NO. 02401C0324642011
IN THE MATTER OF:
SH. MANINDER PAL SINGH
S/O. SH. DILBAGH SINGH
R/O. H. NO. E3/620, DDA FLATS,
SECTOR18, ROHINI,
NEW DELHI - 110 085. . . . PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M/S. NORTH WEST CARRYING COMPANY
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR (S)
SH. HARPREET SINGH
& SH. HARJEET SINGH,
H. O. AT 1002, PRAGATI TOWER,
RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI. . . . DEFENDANT
Date of Instt: 22/07/2011
Date of Reservation of Judgment: 22/07/2013
Date of Judgment: 23/07/2013
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 50,000/ ALONGWITH INTEREST
JUDGMENT
The defendant appointed the plaintiff as a Manager (Project Logistic) on 13/12/2010. At the time of appointment the gross salary of the plaintiff was fixed at about Rs. 35,000/ per month approximately but no appointment letter was Suit No. 52/13/11 Maninder Pal Singh Vs. M/s. North West Carrying Company 1 issued by the defendant to the plaintiff. Only an offer letter was issued by the defendant to the plaintiff in respect of the said job.
The plaintiff performed his duty with sincerity and full devotion but no facility of ESI, PF and gratuity was provided to the plaintiff. No facility of leave was provided by the defendant to the plaintiff.
On 10/06/2011, when the plaintiff reached at the defendant's office to join his duty, the defendant flatly refused the plaintiff to join the duty and terminated his service w.e.f. 10/06/2011 without disclosing any reason. The defendant also forcibly took the resignation letter from the plaintiff. The defendant did not assign any reason for terminating the service of the plaintiff and refused to pay his salary of Rs. 35,000/ for the month of May, 2011 and 10 days salary for the month of June, 2011.
Against the alleged illegal termination of his service, the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 17/06/2011 to the defendant. When the defendant did not heed the legal notice, the plaintiff instituted the present suit for recovery of Rs. 50,000/ which includes arrears of salary and traveling allowance.
Summons were issued to the defendant, to which it filed the written statement through AR Mr. P.K. Verma. In his written statement, the defendant took the preliminary objection that the plaintiff had pleaded the wrong facts and suppressed the material facts from the court. The defendant denied that the plaintiff was appointed on 13/12/2010. He asserted that the plaintiff had submitted application for seeking employment in the defendant's company on 13/12/2010. Suit No. 52/13/11 Maninder Pal Singh Vs. M/s. North West Carrying Company 2 Upon the said application, the defendant company issued letter of intent dated 15/12/2010 to the plaintiff calling upon him to join the company by 17/12/2010. The plaintiff joined the defendant company on 17/12/2010 and detailed letter of appointment governing the terms of appointment was issued to the plaintiff.
As per written statement, the monthly consolidated salary of the plaintiff was Rs. 22,000/ per month subject to deduction of tax, charges etc. The defendant denied that the salary of the plaintiff was Rs. 35,000/ per month. The defendant mentioned the complete schedule of salary given to the plaintiff in the months of January to May, 2011, which is as follows:
MONTH AMOUNT PAID VOUCHER NO. DATE January 21,300 542615 14/2/11 February 22000 543091 7/3/11 March 22000 795994 7/4/11 April 22000 799533 11/5/11 May 21290 801218 8/6/11
The defendant asserted that the plaintiff was not entitled to any benefit of ESI and gratuity. As the head of the project, the plaintiff was enjoying leaves when he so desired. The defendant also mentioned the schedule of day to day expenses given to the plaintiff between 02/04/2011 and 26/04/2011, total amounting to Rs. 2,90,182/.
As per written statement, on 10/06/2011, when the defendant asked the Suit No. 52/13/11 Maninder Pal Singh Vs. M/s. North West Carrying Company 3 plaintiff to provide details of the expenses in respect of money given to him towards daily expenses, the plaintiff chose to quit the organization of the defendant voluntarily. The defendant did not terminate the service of the plaintiff. Rather, the plaintiff was required to serve 30 days prior notice to the defendant before quitting the service. Upon the failure of the plaintiff to give such notice, the salary for 9 days of June, 2011 stood forfeited.
Upon completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed on 12/03/2012:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 50,000/ alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.? (OPP).
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of court fees, cost of suit and advocate fees and other costs, charges and expenses incurred by the plaintiff? (OPP).
3. Relief.
Plaintiff/PW1 Maninder Pal Singh deposed through affidavit of evidence Ex. PW1/1, in which he introduced the new fact that the defendant used to pay him Rs. 22,000/ through cheque and Rs. 13,000/ by cash as salary, but no receipt of Rs. 13,000/ was ever issued by the defendant. The rest of the deposition in affidavit of evidence is conterminous with the contents of the plaint. He relied upon the following documents:
1. The letter of intent dated 15/12/2010 issued by the defendant company in favour of the plaintiff is Ex. PW1/2.
Suit No. 52/13/11 Maninder Pal Singh Vs. M/s. North West Carrying Company 4
2. One certificate dated 10/06/2011 issued by the defendant company in favour of the plaintiff that it had received back the laptop belonging to the company and data card from the plaintiff is Ex. PW1/3.
3. Copy of legal notice dated 17/06/2011 is Ex. PW1/A and the copy of postal receipts are Ex. PW1/B. In the cross examination, PW1 replied that his claim of Rs. 50,000/ is for the salary of the month of May, 2011 and for travelling allowance. He replied that he had not placed on record any copy of TA bills. He denied that he was given an appointment letter based on which he joined the service of the defendant. He stated that he was claiming the salary @ Rs. 35,000/ per month on the basis of oral contract to this effect between the parties. He deposed that he was given salary from January, 2011 @ Rs. 22,000/ per month.
He further replied that he had received the cheques dated 14/02/2011 of Rs. 21,300/, dated 07/03/2011 of Rs. 22,000/, dated 07/04/2011 of Rs. 22,000/, dated 11/05/2011 of Rs. 22,000/ and the cheque dated 08/06/2011 of Rs. 21,290/. He denied the suggestion that he was not paid any salary by cash @ Rs. 13,000/ per month. He deposed that he had no complaint regarding non payment of gratuity. He admitted that the cash used to be given to him but stated that the next payment used to be given only after clearance of the first cash payment. He denied that a cheque no. 795945 dated 21/04/2011 for Rs. 30,000/ was given to him towards daily expenses. He denied the suggestion that he had not given details of expenses incurred by him to the defendant company. He deposed that he had Suit No. 52/13/11 Maninder Pal Singh Vs. M/s. North West Carrying Company 5 submitted email in this regard to one Ms. Geeta Jain, an employee of the defendant company. He denied the suggestion that a sum of Rs. 2,90,182/ was outstanding against him, which was allegedly given to him to meet his daily expenses. He denied the suggestion that he left the service of defendant company when it insisted upon giving account of daily expenses incurred by him. He deposed that he was not given any termination letter by the defendant company and explained that it was a verbal order.
Defendant company examined DW1 Mr. Prem Kumar in support of its defence. DW1 relied upon the following relevant documents in support of his testimony - The documents Ex. PW1/8A to Ex. PW1/8D which were the money vouchers issued allegedly in favour of the plaintiff to meet his daily expenses.
In the cross examination, DW1 denied the suggestion that all the money vouchers were forged and were made by the defendant company after the receipt of legal notice of the plaintiff. DW1 deposed that no written notice was given to the plaintiff regarding the alleged money to be recovered from the plaintiff towards unexplained daily expenses. He denied the suggestion that further amounts were given to the plaintiff only after earlier given amounts had been fully spent towards daily expenses by the plaintiff. He denied the suggestion that there is nothing outstanding against the plaintiff. He finally denied the suggestion that the defendant company is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/ as salary dues and TA to the plaintiff.
One reply given by DW1 Sh. Prem Kumar in cross examination merits Suit No. 52/13/11 Maninder Pal Singh Vs. M/s. North West Carrying Company 6 special consideration. The reply has been reproduced in verbatim thus "your suggestion is correct that the salary of the plaintiff was Rs. 35,000/ per month, out of which Rs. 22,000/ was given by cheque and Rs. 13,000/ was given by cash".
Ld. counsel for plaintiff has argued that this is the admission by DW1 that the salary of the plaintiff was Rs. 35,000/ per month. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for defendant has argued that the sentence contained a typographical error and the words "suggestion is correct" should be read as "suggestion is incorrect" because defendant never admitted that the salary of the plaintiff was Rs. 35,000/ per month. The arguments of parties shall be considered while dealing with the issues framed in this case.
Now my issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No. 1:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 50,000/ alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.? (OPP).
The plaintiff has asserted that his salary was Rs. 35,000/ per month, that his service was illegally terminated by the defendant on 10/06/2011, that he was not paid the salary of May, 2011 and salary of 9 days of June, 2011 and arrears of TA. Thus, the plaintiff has instituted the suit for recovery of Rs. 50,000/ as unpaid salary and TA.
It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove the facts asserted by him by leading cogent evidence. However, the plaintiff adduced no evidence from his side to prove any of the fact asserted by him; he simply harped upon the defence Suit No. 52/13/11 Maninder Pal Singh Vs. M/s. North West Carrying Company 7 taken and the facts admitted to by the defendant to buttress his case.
As per plaint, no appointment letter was issued by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and he was joined to his duties orally. Thus, no scale of salary and terms and conditions of the job has been produced by the plaintiff. As per plaint, no termination letter was issued by the defendant to the plaintiff to terminate his job. Rather, the plaintiff was allegedly orally forced to resign from his job. Thus, as per plaint, the entire relationship between him and the defendant was oral.
The defendant took the defence that the lump sum salary of the plaintiff was Rs. 22,000/ per month, which was paid to him every month by cheque. The defendant also took the defence that the service of the plaintiff was not terminated, rather, the plaintiff had voluntarily quit his service on 10/06/2011 when he was asked to account for a total sum of Rs. 2,90,182/, which he had obtained from the defendant towards day to day expenditure as the Head of the Metro Project.
The defence sounds credible as the plaintiff has not even mentioned the name of the officer/employee of the defendant company who had allegedly terminated his service and who had orally forced him to write his resignation letter on 10/06/2011.
Although, the plaintiff had not disclosed in the plaint through which mode was he paid his salary, he stated in his affidavit of evidence that the defendant paid him Rs. 22,000/ per month by way of cheque and Rs. 13,000/ by Suit No. 52/13/11 Maninder Pal Singh Vs. M/s. North West Carrying Company 8 way of cash, as salary. The plaintiff adduced neither the proof of salary received by way of cheque nor the same allegedly received by way of cash.
On the other hand, the defence taken by the defendant has been consistent in the written statement, in the cross examination of PW1 and in the affidavit of evidence filed by DW1 that the salary of the plaintiff was only Rs. 22,000/ per month, which was paid by way of cheques. Hence, the apparent admission by DW1 Prem Kumar that "your suggestion is correct that the salary of the plaintiff was Rs. 35,000/ per month, out of which Rs. 22,000/ was given by cheque and Rs. 13,000/ was given by cash", shall be considered to be a typographical error and the words "suggestion is correct" would be read as "suggestion is incorrect".
In view of above said observation, the plaintiff has failed to prove that his salary was Rs. 35,000/ per month. In fact, the plaintiff could prove that his salary was Rs. 22,000/ per month only because of the admission of the defendant.
As per plaint, the cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff on 10/06/2011 when the officer/employee of the defendant company had allegedly terminated his service and orally forced him to write his resignation letter. This is a very vague allegation and is devoid of all essential details. Neither the circumstances in which the plaintiff was allegedly forced to resign, nor the name of the officer/employee of the defendant company, who had allegedly orally forced him to resign, have been mentioned in the plaint.
Suit No. 52/13/11 Maninder Pal Singh Vs. M/s. North West Carrying Company 9 The plaintiff has alleged that the entire transactions and relationship between him and the defendant company were oral; there was no formal appointment letter to stipulate the formal mode and scale of salary and emoluments, there was no formal termination letter through which the service of the plaintiff was terminated by the defendant.
When the plaintiff's version of forcible termination of service is pitted against the defendant's version of voluntarily quitting of service, two equally possible set of facts emerge in the suit and the cause of action remains unproved.
Hence, issue no. 1 is decided against the plaintiff. Issue No. 2:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of court fees, cost of suit and advocate fees and other costs, charges and expenses incurred by the plaintiff? (OPP).
Issue no. 2 is decided in accordance with issue no. 1 and the plaintiff is held not entitled to the relief mentioned in issue no. 2. Relief:
The suit is dismissed as not proved. The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. The parties shall bear their own cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room, after due completion.
Announced in open (VISHAL SINGH) court on 23/07/2013 CIVIL JUDGE9/CENTRAL (Judgment contains 10 printed pages) DELHI: 23/07/2013 Suit No. 52/13/11 Maninder Pal Singh Vs. M/s. North West Carrying Company 10