Bangalore District Court
Ravi K vs Mahesh Medhekar on 2 January, 2017
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-15) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2017.
PRESENT:
Sri PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA, B.A.,LL.B.(Spl.),
VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-15),
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.6430/2013
PLAINTIFF : Ravi K.,
S/o. Kuppareddi,
Aged about 30 years,
Residing at No.160,
2nd Cross,
Next to Bellename,
J.S. Dinne, J.P. Nagar,
8th Phase,
Bengaluru - 560 076.
(By Sri M. Rajashekar,
Advocate)
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS : 1. Mahesh Medhekar,
H.R. Manager,
Mercedes Benz Research
and Development India
Private Limited, Phase I,
Opposite Sathya Sai
Hospital, 9, 10, 1 Main
st
Road, KIADB Export,
Promotion Industrial Area,
Whitefield, Bengaluru - 66.
Cont'd..
-2- O.S. No.6430/2013
2. Torsten Meier,
Manager,
Mercedes Benz Research
and Development India
Private Limited, Phase I,
Opposite Sathya Sai
Hospital, 9, 10, 1 Main
st
Road, KIADB Export,
Promotion Industrial Area,
Whitefield, Bengaluru - 66.
(Defendant No.2 deleted as
per Court order dated 21-
07-2014.)
3. Dr. Jens Cattarius,
CEO and MD,
Mercedes Benz Research
and Development India
Private Limited, Phase I,
Opposite Sathya Sai
Hospital, 9, 10, 1st Main
Road, KIADB Export,
Promotion Industrial Area,
Whitefield, Bengaluru - 66.
4. Mercedes Benz Research
and Development India
Private Limited, Phase I,
Opposite Sathya Sai
Hospital, 9, 10, 1 Main
st
Road, KIADB Export,
Promotion Industrial Area,
Whitefield, Bengaluru - 66.
(Defendants 1 and 4 by Sri
P.N., Advocate)
(Defendant No.3 : Ex-parte)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 02-09-2013
Nature of the Suit (Suit on : Recovery of damages.
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for injun-
ction etc,)
Cont'd..
-3- O.S. No.6430/2013
Date of the commencement : 09-09-2015
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 02-01-2017
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------
Total duration : 3 years, 4 months, -- days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA)
VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
An&/- Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against defendants 1, 3 and 4 with a prayer to direct the defendants jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.1-00 Crore towards damages with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation.
2. The brief facts of the plaint are as under:-
Plaintiff has contended he is a graduate of Engineering. Fourth defendant Company offered work opportunity considering the capability and skills of the plaintiff. After various discussions that had taken place between plaintiff and the fourth defendant, fourth defendant did send an offer letter to the plaintiff on 13- 07-2009 informing him that he was selected by the Cont'd..
-4- O.S. No.6430/2013 Mercedes Benz Research and Development India Private Limited (MBRDI) for the position of Lead Engineer in the Company's Grade L2 in the Department of CAD MBC and VAN with an instruction to join the Company on or before 10-08-2009. Plaintiff worked with fourth defendant to the best of his abilities without any blemish and upon completing his probation period of 6 months, his service was confirmed by the fourth defendant and thus, the plaintiff became a permanent employee of the first defendant Company.
It is submitted plaintiff witnessed lots of bitter experience in his service time in the fourth defendant Company related to wrong practices, irregularities, inequality, lack of transparency and many more which were brought to the knowledge of superiors over a period of time including to the second defendant CEO of the fourth defendant Company as the plaintiff was also a victim of wrong practices. Plaintiff had without any blemish and selfishness made a revolutionary invention and wanted the same to be patented in the name of the fourth defendant Company. The said invention was the outcome of the hard work, spirit of service, love and ethics that he believed. But in spite of all the aforesaid harassments, plaintiff being a specialist in the area of engineering he was serving, was silently putting up with the situation and was performing the job assigned to him excellently, giving impressive results continuously which results were considered as inefficient by the Cont'd..
-5- O.S. No.6430/2013 superiors of the plaintiff including defendant No.1 and by their oral words. Though salary paid to the plaintiff was highly insufficient, he worked as a matter of gratitude and passion which resulted in the plaintiff being threatened orally by the first defendant to give his resignation in the end. It is submitted this being the actual background of the incident, plaintiff being helpless and left with no other option had to bow down to the pressure of the first defendant and send his resignation directly to the second defendant CEO on 8th June, 2012. However, second defendant CEO did not reply to the said mail and the first defendant HR Head on 08-06-2012 itself gave an unfair exit treatment officially ordering the plaintiff as follows -
"You need not to attend the duties to serve your notice period, kindly handover the project related IT assets to your reporting Manager and the ID card to Sunil K. from Corporate Security by 5 p.m. today - final settlement will be done after completion of the notice period i.e., after September 7, 2012."
This fact prima facie proves that the plaintiff was treated with great level of injustice. The hard action by first defendant not only pushed plaintiff into depression, but also it destroyed the respect, reputation and image in the close circled engineering industry in which the plaintiff has to work for his survival being salary Cont'd..
-6- O.S. No.6430/2013 dependent person by which he is experiencing agony mentally and emotionally continuously.
It is submitted plaintiff was given false information in his exit formal documents that damaged his further career completely and also it shattered the confidence of the plaintiff. The ruthless action that the plaintiff experienced also made the plaintiff a permanent victim losing his future as well as career in the reputed companies for no fault of his, in spite of having all the ability and talent that the plaintiff has mastered by hard work for decades. It is submitted though the plaintiff was forced to resign his job on 06-08-2012 and was asked by the first defendant not to attend the duties thereafter, he was not issued with the exit documents, therefore the plaintiff did send a mail on 23-08-2012 requesting the first defendant to relieve him officially. First defendant on 23-08-2012 replied asking the plaintiff to contact his sub-ordinates for exit formalities. After several exchange of mails and long wait, plaintiff got the first set of relieving letters from the defendants vide mail dated 28-08-2012 stating as follows -
"This is to certify that Mr. Ravi K. (Employee ID 50445) worked with Mercedes Benz Research and Development India Private Limited from August 10, 2009 until June 30th 2012 as lead Engineer in the department of MVM interior exterior."
Cont'd..
-7- O.S. No.6430/2013 Plaintiff did send mail to the defendant on 29-08- 2012 requesting to send corrected exit letters. Defendant once again on 31-08-2012 sent one more exit letters with attachment which reads as follows -
"This is to certify that Mr. Ravi K. (Employee ID 50445) worked with Mercedes Benz Research and Development India Private Limited from August 10, 2009 until June 24th August 2012 as lead Engineer in the department of MVM interior exterior."
which letters prima facie prove that it is nothing but false. It is submitted that very fact that the defendants practices mal-practice against the plaintiff is evident from the aforesaid documents. Defendants have by their conduct, put forward a bad practice which is highly objectionable and liable to be condemned. It is submitted due to illegal and highhanded action on the part of the defendant, plaintiff has not only lost the job and opportunity on account of achievement in the Company but he has also became a victim of losing his bright future and career in the reputed companies for no fault of his in spite of having all the ability and talent that he has mastered by hard work for decades. It is submitted plaintiff left with no other alternative was constrained to issue legal notice to the defendant calling upon them to pay damages towards damage to his reputation, loss of job, image and mental agony suffered by him within a period of 15 days from the date of Cont'd..
-8- O.S. No.6430/2013 receipt of the legal notice. Though notice was served to the defendant, defendant has not replied to the said notice. With this submission, plaintiff prayed to decree the suit.
3. On the other hand, in spite of service of summons, defendant No.3 has not appeared before the Court, hence defendant No.3 placed ex-parte.
4. Though plaintiff made defendant No.2 as party in the earlier occasion, thereafter his name was deleted on the basis of the memo filed by the plaintiff.
5. In pursuance of summons, defendants 1 and 4 have appeared through their Counsel and filed their written statement. The brief facts of the written statement of defendants 1 and 4 are as under -
Defendants have admitted plaintiff was former employee of defendant No.4 and plaintiff has worked with the defendant No.4 as Lead Engineer from 10-08- 2009 till 24-08-2012. Defendants have admitted defendant No.4 issued letter of appointment to the plaintiff to join defendant No.4 in the capacity of Lead Engineer and plaintiff has executed terms of appointment letter and started his employment with defendant No.4. Defendants have further contended defendant No.4 deputed the plaintiff to undergo training with one of its group companies in Germany. Plaintiff accepted the offer and traveled to Germany on the Cont'd..
-9- O.S. No.6430/2013 business visa issued by the German Embassy in India. However, after reaching Germany, plaintiff wanted to pursue the employment there instead of returning to India upon completion of his training. The same being contrary to the purpose for which he was deputed to Germany and also being impermissible under the terms of the business visa from the German Embassy in India, the group Company of defendant No.4 declined to offer an employment to the plaintiff. Accordingly, upon completion of his training, plaintiff returned to India and resumed his employment with defendant No.4 and worked with defendant No.4 for three years.
It is submitted after completing almost 3 years of employment with defendant No.4, on 08-06-2012 plaintiff addressed an e-mail to the Management of the defendant No.4 intimating his decision to leave his employment (resignation mail). In the resignation mail, plaintiff clearly communicated his appreciation and gratitude for the working atmosphere that he had enjoyed at the defendant No.4 Company for three years in the following manner -
"It is with sadness that I leave a role where I have worked with such a fantastic and supported environment. I have really enjoyed the variety of projects and challenges in this job and I have learnt much about the industry. I would like to extend a huge tank to you and the rest of the Cont'd..
- 10 - O.S. No.6430/2013 management team for all you have done for me over the last 3 years."
It is submitted immediately thereafter, plaintiff had also held discussion with defendant No.1. Plaintiff requested defendant No.1 that for personal reasons, he being permitted to remain absent from work forthwith and sought permission to do so while he completes his three months notice period under the terms of the appointment letter. It is submitted in consultation of management of defendant No.4, defendant No.1 informed plaintiff that his case was compassionately considered. Defendant No.1 also sent an e-mail dated 08-06-2012 in this regard communicating to the plaintiff the permission to remain absent from work during the notice period. It was however communicated to the plaintiff that the final settlement of his dues will be done only after completion of the notice period. Accordingly, plaintiff remained absent from work while completing his notice period. It is submitted on 23-08- 2012 i.e., a few days before completion of the notice period, the plaintiff addressed an e-mail to defendant No.1 requesting for relieving him forthwith i.e., with effect from 24-08-2012. As only a few days were remaining for completion of the notice period, the management of defendant No.4 acceded to the request of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 communicated to the plaintiff names of the officials of defendant No.4 that the plaintiff needed to get in touch with for completion of Cont'd..
- 11 - O.S. No.6430/2013 his exit formalities as well as for claiming the amounts due to him. Thus, plaintiff exited his employment with defendant No.4 with effect from 24-08-2012. As per the Company's standard terms and conditions applicable to the plaintiff, he was paid full salary for June, 2012. Further, plaintiff's July's salary along with salary for August (on pro-rata basis) was processed and paid to him in December, 2012. Defendant No.4 thereafter issued copies of relieving letter and experience certificate on 28-08-2012. However, the same contained some inadvertent typographical errors. The date of document was wrongly shown as 13-07-2012 instead of 28-08-2012 and the last working day of the plaintiff was wrongly shown as 30-06-2012 instead of 24-08-2012. It is submitted on the next day, plaintiff requested for correct exit documents dated 28-08-2012. It is submitted defendant No.4 received P.F. withdrawal form from the plaintiff. The form was then sent to CCMS (PF consultants) and accordingly, cheque has been sent to the plaintiff.
It is submitted surprisingly in July, 2013 defendant received a legal notice dated 03-07-2013 issued by the plaintiff. The said notice made various unfounded and frivolous allegations against the defendant. Thereafter, defendant No.4 issued a befitting reply to the legal notice through its Counsel on 19-07- 2013. Despite of the receipt of the reply, plaintiff has now chosen to file the present suit only to harass the Cont'd..
- 12 - O.S. No.6430/2013 defendants. With this submission, defendants prayed to dismiss the suit.
6. On the basis of the above said pleadings, this Court has framed the following -
ISSUES
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that on account of de-motivation inequality, humiliation, harassment at the working place starting with non-cooperation by his superiors and not providing efficient work, environment to the plaintiff by defendants, the plaintiff was forced to tender his resignation?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that on account of false information furnished by the defendants in his exit formal documents made the plaintiff victim of loosing his future as well as carrier in reputed companies for no fault of him?
3) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for damages for Rs.one crore with interest at the rate of 18% p.a, from the date of suit, till its realisation?
4) What order or decree?
Cont'd..
- 13 - O.S. No.6430/2013
7. In order to substantiate averments of the plaint, plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got documents marked as per Exs.P.1 to P.90. On the other hand, authorised representative of defendant No.4 Company himself examined as D.W.1 and got documents marked as per Exs.D.1 and D.2.
8. I have heard arguments from both sides.
9. At the time of arguments, Advocate for plaintiff submitted written arguments and relied the rulings.
10. My findings on the above Issues are as under -
ISSUE No.1 - Negative;
ISSUE No.2 - Negative;
ISSUE No.3 - Negative;
ISSUE No.4 - As per final order, for the following -
REASONS
11. ISSUE NOs.1 TO 3 : Since these Issues are inter-related to each other, they are being taken up together for discussion at a stretch in order to avoid repetition of facts.
12. Advocate for plaintiff submitted written argument which runs 39 pages. Sum and substance of Cont'd..
- 14 - O.S. No.6430/2013 the written argument submitted by the plaintiff that in pursuance of offer letter, plaintiff joined fourth defendant Company as a Lead Engineer with effect from 10-08-2009 and he has worked with fourth defendant to the best of his abilities without any blemish and upon completing his probation period, his service was confirmed by the fourth defendant and thus the plaintiff became a permanent employee of the first defendant Company. Plaintiff had without any blemish and selfishness made a revolutionary invention and wanted the same to be patented in the name of fourth defendant Company. The said invention was the out come of the hard work, spirit of service, love and ethics that he believed. It is argued, defendants 1 and 2 never encouraged and tolerated his efforts of innovation, as a result plaintiff experienced difficulties in the said process and the plaintiff witnesses lots of bitter experiences in his service time in the fourth defendant Company related to wrong practices, irregularities, inequality, lack of transparency. It is argued in spite of all the aforesaid harassments, plaintiff being a specialist in the area of engineering he was serving, was silently putting up with the situation and was performing the job assigned to him excellently though his salary was highly insufficient. It is argued plaintiff being helpless and left with no other option had to bow down to the pressure of the first defendant and send his resignation directly to the second defendant CEO on 08-06-2012. Defendant No.2 being CEO did not reply to the said Cont'd..
- 15 - O.S. No.6430/2013 mail, but defendant No.1 HR Head gave an unfair exit treatment officially ordering the plaintiff as follows -
"You need not to attend the duties to serve your notice period, kindly handover the project related IT assets to your reporting Manager and the ID card to Sunil K. from Corporate Security by 5 p.m. today - final settlement will be done after completion of the notice period i.e., after September 7, 2012."
13. It is argued plaintiff was given false information in his exit formal documents and he was forced to resign the job on 08-06-2012. It is argued defendant Company issued relieving letter stating that plaintiff worked for their Company from 10-08-2009 till 30-06-2012. Thereafter, plaintiff has requested the defendant Company to issue corrected exit letters and again the defendant Company has issued exit letter stating that plaintiff worked with defendant No.4 Company from 10-08-2009 till 24-08-2012. Lastly it is argued defendants have by their conduct put forward bad practice which is highly objectionable and liable to be condemned. Unlawful methods adopted by the defendants not only pushed the plaintiff into depression, but also made him to suffer further financially, mentally, emotionally, physically and thereby made him loose his confidence of either Cont'd..
- 16 - O.S. No.6430/2013 prosecuting his employment or even continuing with his innovative skills.
14. On the other hand, Advocate for defendant has vehemently argued suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. In fact plaintiff has filed this suit only to harass the defendants. It is argued there is no dispute that plaintiff worked as Lead Engineer with defendant No.4 Company from 10-08- 2009 to 24-08-2012. It is argued plaintiff after completing almost 3 years of employment addressed resignation mail wherein he has specifically mentioned he has really enjoyed variety of projects and challenges in his job. It is argued in the said e-mail, plaintiff has also mentioned fantastic and supported environment to work as a Lead Engineer. It is argued when plaintiff has sent e-mail in the ethical manner, question of harassing by the defendant to the plaintiff does not arise. It is argued immediately after receipt of the resignation e- mail, defendant No.4 has allowed the plaintiff to remain absent from duties during the notice period. A few days before completion of notice period, plaintiff addressed e- mail requesting for relieving him forthwith and accordingly, defendant No.4 has issued exit letters. It is argued no doubt there were some typographical errors with regard to last working day of the plaintiff, but it was rectified by defendant No.4 within three days from the date of receipt of the request from the plaintiff. Lastly, it is argued since defendant No.4 Company has Cont'd..
- 17 - O.S. No.6430/2013 complied all the rules and regulations in relieving the plaintiff, question of paying compensation as prayed by the plaintiff does not arise.
15. On careful perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence of both the sides, I am of the opinion that plaintiff has utterly failed to prove that on account of de-motivation, inequality, humiliation, harassment at the working place, tolerating with no co- operation by the superiors and not providing efficient work environment to him by the defendants, he was forced to tender his resignation. Further, plaintiff has failed to prove on account of false information furnished by the defendant in his exit formal documents made him victim of losing his future as well as career in the reputed companies for no fault of him. In the present case, there is no dispute that plaintiff had worked as Lead Manager with defendant No.4 Company from 10- 08-2009 to 24-08-2009. It is not in dispute that plaintiff has sent resignation directly to the second defendant on 08-06-2012 and on that day, first defendant H.R. Head itself replied to the said mail stating that plaintiff need not to attend the duties during the notice period. It is also not in dispute defendant No.1 HR Head requested the plaintiff to handover the project related IT assets to his reporting manager and ID card to Sunil K by 5:00 p.m. on 08-06- 2012. It is not in dispute plaintiff has not worked with defendant No.4 Company from 08-06-2012 to 24-08- Cont'd..
- 18 - O.S. No.6430/2013 2012. Even it is not in dispute on 23-08-2012, plaintiff has requested the defendant No.4 to relieve him officially with effect from 24-08-2012. It is not in dispute considering the request of the plaintiff, the management of defendant No.4 accepted the request of the plaintiff and made arrangements for exit formalities. It is not in dispute plaintiff has received full salary of June, 2012 and he has also received salary of July and August, 2012 in December, 2012. It is not in dispute defendant No.4 received the P.F. withdrawal form from the plaintiff on 20-03-2013 and cheque dated 25-04- 2013 drawn in favour of the plaintiff.
16. The only grievance pleaded by the plaintiff immediately after receipt of resignation mail on 08-06- 2012, defendant Company gave an unfair exit treatment stating "you need not to attend the duties to serve your notice period". Another grievance of the plaintiff after several exchange of mails, he got the first set of relieve letters from the defendant vide mail dated 28-08-2012 wherein it has stated plaintiff worked with MBRDI from 10-08-2009 till 30-06-2012. It is admitted fact plaintiff has not worked with defendant No.4 Company from 10- 08-2009 till 30-06-2012. Further grievance of the plaintiff once again he sent a mail to the defendant requesting to send correct exit letters. It is admitted fact defendant No.4 Company has issued one more exit letter stating that plaintiff worked with defendant No.4 Company from 10-08-2009 till 24-08-2012.
Cont'd..
- 19 - O.S. No.6430/2013 Considering all the above said aspects, this Court is of the opinion that plaintiff has utterly failed to prove Issue Nos.1 and 2 in his favour. Except his oral say, no iota of document produced by the plaintiff to prove on account of demotivation, inequality, humiliation and harassment at the working place, non-cooperation of the superiors, he was forced to tender his resignation. No doubt plaintiff has produced plenty of e-mail correspondence taken place between him and the defendants, but on careful perusal of the said e-mails, nowhere defendants have stated their non-cooperation to the plaintiff to do his job.
17. First and foremost thing point to be considered in the present case with regard to resignation mail sent by the plaintiff on 08-06-2012. The said resignation mail marked as Ex.P.2. On perusal of contents of Ex.P.2, it reads as under -
"From: Ravi K To : Jens Cattarius/623/INT/EEC@WK-COOP Cc : Torsten Meier/623/INT/EEC@WK-COOP;
Mahesh Medhekar/623/INT/EEC@WK-COO) Date : 08-06-2012 10:01 ZE5B Subject: Resignation Dear Dr. Cattarius, I regret to inform you that I'm leaving MBRDI. It is with sadness that I leave a role Cont'd..
- 20 - O.S. No.6430/2013 where I have worked with such a fantastic and supported environment. I have really enjoyed the variety of projects and challenges in this job and I have learnt much about the industry. I'd like to extend a huge tank to you and the rest of the management team for all you have done for me over the last 3 years."
Yours sincerely Ravi, MVM-I-E"
18. So, on perusal of the above said documents, it reveals plaintiff has expressed his regretness to leave job of defendant No.4 Company. In Ex.P.2, he has also mentioned he worked with fantastic and supportive environment. In Ex.P.2, plaintiff has also mentioned he has really enjoyed the variety of projects and challenges in his job and have learnt much about the industry. Further, in Ex.P.2 he has also extended his huge thanks to Dr. Cattarius and rest of the management team for all they have done for him over the last three years. When this being the resignation mail sent by the plaintiff on 08-06-2012, question of demotivation, inequality, humiliation, harassment at the working place, non-cooperation by his superiors as alleged by the plaintiff does not arise. Ex.P.3 is reply mail of Ex.P.2 which is also dated 08-06-2012. In Ex.P.3, defendant Company has specifically mentioned Cont'd..
- 21 - O.S. No.6430/2013 resignation has been accepted keeping in mind of their discussion. Further, in Ex.P.3 it has mentioned plaintiff need not to attend the duties to serve their notice period. As per Condition No.14 of offer letter which is marked as per Ex.P.1, if plaintiff is to leave MBDRI during the course of his employment, minimum of three months notice has to be given in writing or salary equivalent to three months should be deposited with MBDRI after obtaining consent in writing from the management of the Company. It is not the case of the plaintiff he has deposited three months' salary before sending his resignation mail. Even it is not the case of the plaintiff in the resignation mail which is marked as per Ex.P.2, he has requested defendant No.4 Company to relieve him immediately and he is ready to deposit three months' salary. Admittedly, as per the records and admission of P.W.1, it discloses plaintiff has received three months' salary from the defendant No.4. Under such circumstances, defendant ought to have wait to complete the exit formalities till 07-09-2012 as rightly stated by defendant No.4 in Ex.P.3 as final settlement shall be done after completion of the notice period i.e., after September 7, 2012. Merely because defendant Company sent mail Ex.P.3 directing the plaintiff to hand over project related assets to his reporting manager and ID card to Sunil K. by 5:00 p.m. on 08-06-2012, is not a ground to come to conclusion plaintiff was treated with great level of injustice. Merely because HD Head of defendant No.1 has sent e-mail as Cont'd..
- 22 - O.S. No.6430/2013 per Ex.P.3, cannot be termed as false information in the exit formal documents of the plaintiff. Nowhere in Ex.P.3, defendant Company has disclosed its displeasure about resignation of the plaintiff to the defendant Company. As I have discussed above, plaintiff has produced various mails which are marked as per Exs.P.19 to P.88. They are all pertaining to job searching mails and P.F. settlement mails. Nowhere in the above said documents, it has mentioned that defendants harassed the plaintiff at the working place and defendant started non-cooperation to the plaintiff and defendants have created hostile attitude to the plaintiff to work as Lead Manager. Hence, the documents relied by the plaintiff which are marked as per Exs.P.1 to P.90 are not helpful to the case of the plaintiff to prove Issue Nos.1 and 2 in his favour.
19. Even on perusal of oral evidence of P.W.1, it is also helpful to the case of the plaintiff to prove Issue Nos.1 and 2 in his favour. No doubt in the cross- examination, he has deposed defendants by their conduct put forward a bad practice which is highly objectionable and liable to be condemned, but he has not established the same by adducing cogent and material evidence. No doubt P.W.1 in the cross- examination has also deposed on account of achievements made by him in the fourth defendant Company, he has not only lost his job in the fourth defendant, but also became victim of losing his future Cont'd..
- 23 - O.S. No.6430/2013 and career in the reputed companies. In the cross-
examination, P.W.1 has specifically admitted now he is working at SEMCON Company and he is drawing salary of Rs.12 Lakhs per annum. In his evidence, he has also admitted when he joined defendant Company, it has offered salary around Rs.7 Lakhs per annum. When plaintiff is getting more salary than the salary given by the defendant Company, question of loosing his future and career in the reputed Company as stated by the plaintiff does not arise.
20. On perusal of Ex.P.4 which is the e-mail sent by the plaintiff on 23-08-2012 requesting the defendant Company to relieve him officially from his duty with effect from 24-08-2012. Ex.P.5 is the e-mail sent by defendant No.4 Company to the plaintiff requesting him to contact Vani or Larissa for the exit formalities and official exit documents. Ex.P.7 is exit letter issued by the defendant Company on July 13, 2012 wherein defendant Company has mentioned plaintiff worked with Mercedes Benz from 10-08-2009 till 30-06-2012 as a Lead Engineer. Since in Ex.P.7 the date has wrongly shown as 30-06-2012 instead of 24-08-2012, plaintiff has taken contention defendant has issued false information in its exit letter. Ex.P.8 is letter written by defendant Company on July 13, 2012. Even in the said letter, it has shown resignation letter dated 30-06-2012 instead of 08-06-2012. Merely because date is wrongly typed in Exs.P.7 and P.8, it is not a ground to award Cont'd..
- 24 - O.S. No.6430/2013 damages as prayed by the plaintiff, because Exs.P.8(b) and P.8(c) which are dated August 28, 2012 defendant Company has rectified its mistake with regard to wrong date mentioned in Exs.P.7 and P.8. In Ex.P.8(b), defendant Company has specifically mentioned resignation has been accepted and plaintiff has been relieved of his duties with effect from closing hours of August 24, 2012. In Ex.P.8(c), it has specifically mentioned plaintiff worked as Lead Engineer from 10- 08-2009 till August 24, 2012. Nowhere in Exs.P.8(b) and P.8(c), defendant Company has disclosed its displeasure with regard to work turned out by the plaintiff during the period of three years. Under such circumstances, question of giving false information by the defendant Company in exit documents as stated by the plaintiff is not acceptable one.
21. On perusal of the records, it discloses plaintiff immediately after sending his resignation mail to the defendant Company started searching job. Exs.P.19 to P.59 are the e-mails pertaining to job searching between 08-06-2012 to 08-08-2012. During three months notice period i.e., from 08-06-2012 to 07-09-2012, plaintiff has made various correspondence to search new job. On the basis of Ex.P.2, it discloses plaintiff has voluntarily sent resignation to the defendant No.4 and immediately after sending resignation mail on 08-06-2012 and on the same day itself, he started to search new job. When that being the case, on account of false information Cont'd..
- 25 - O.S. No.6430/2013 furnished by the defendant in his exit formal documents made the plaintiff victim of missing his future as well as career does not arise. Nowhere plaintiff has pleaded he was unable to get new assignment on account of the wrong date mentioned in Exs.P.7 and P.8. Admittedly, Exs.P.7 and P.8 are dated July 13, 2012. On perusal of the documents, it also discloses plaintiff has requested Larissa to send him corrected exit and relieving letters and accordingly, defendant No.4 has sent correct exit and relieving letters as per Exs.P.8(b) and P.8(c). Under such circumstances, contention taken by the plaintiff that he suffered humiliation, harassment at the working place, therefore he was forced to tender his resignation are not acceptable.
22. P.W.1 in the cross-examination has specifically admitted before joining defendant Company, he was working with General Motors and his salary in General Motors was around Rs.3 Lakhs per annum. Further, he has admitted when he joined defendant Company, it had offered salary around Rs.7 Lakhs per annum. He has admitted he worked in defendant Company for a period of three years and on each year, he got increment. He has admitted he had been to Germany on the work of defendant No.4 Company. Though P.W.1 has deposed, he is having proof in order to show during the period of three years he has complained to the superiors of defendant No.4 with regard to harassment by the management of the Cont'd..
- 26 - O.S. No.6430/2013 Company. In the very next sentence, he has admitted he has not produced said documents before the Court. He has admitted defendant Company is not due any amount payable to him with regard to his salary. He has voluntarily deposed to the best of his knowledge, there is no due from the defendant No.4 Company. He has also admitted defendant No.4 Company had issued relieving letters to him. Further, he has voluntarily deposed he had received relieving letters twice. Further, he has admitted he is not taking any treatment with regard to psychological infirmities. Lastly, he has admitted in Ex.P.57, it is mentioned about defendant No.4 Company had kept P.F. cheque ready and asked him to collect. He has admitted it is not his case that defendant No.4 Company did not issue P.F. cheque to him. These are the admissions of P.W.1 not helpful to the case of the plaintiff to prove Issue Nos.1 and 2 in his favour.
23. On the other hand, authorised representative of defendant No.4 in his evidence specifically deposed reiterating the averments of the written statement. Though D.W.1 cross-examined at length, nothing has been brought on record to disbelieve his evidence. On careful perusal of the cross-examination of D.W.1, it discloses plaintiff has cross-examined D.W.1 at length without there being any pleadings. Since plaintiff has not pleaded with regard to his travel to Germany and with regard to quantum of his salary and with regard to Cont'd..
- 27 - O.S. No.6430/2013 acceptance of resignation of defendant No.3, cross- examination of D.W.1 pertaining to the above said incidents has no substance at all. In the cross- examination, D.W.1 has specifically denied he was harassing the plaintiff, therefore plaintiff was constrained to give resignation letter addressed to CEO. No doubt D.W.1 has admitted having not obtained exit feed back form from the plaintiff, even the said admission not fatal to the case of the defendant.
24. Advocate for plaintiff has produced list of citations as under -
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Description
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation 1 Marquette Law Review
Citation 2 Rooks vs Bernad Case_House of
Lords_1964
Citation 3 SS Shetty vs Bharthi Nidi
Citation 4 N.P. Mathai v/s The Federal Bank Ltd
Citation 5 Sheikh Jaru Bepari vs A.G. Peters and
others_1941
Citation 6 Raj Kishore Sahay and ors vs Binod
Kumar and ors.
Citation 7 J. Samuel and others vs Gattu Mahesh
and others.
Citation 8 New York Times Co 1964_US Supreme
Court.
Citation 9 Board_of_Trustees_of_The_Port_of_vs-_
Dilipkumar_Raghavendranath
Citation 10 Rodriguez v. North American Aviation-
Inc.
Cont'd..
- 28 - O.S. No.6430/2013
Citation 11 Justice P B Savant vs Times Global
Broadcasting Co.Ltd and others
Citation 12 BMW NORTH AMERICA - INC. V.
GORE
Citation 13 Neal v. Farmers Ins. Exchange
Citation 14 INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS
(BOMBAY) PRIVATE LTD. & ORS Vs.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation 15 EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS (PRIVATE)
LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. THE UNION
OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation 16 McKINNEY v. COUNTY OF SANTA
CLARA
Citation 17 FORM No.DIR-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
25. Advocate for plaintiff has also submitted written arguments. On perusal of the written argument, at the cost of repetition, I would like to say the said written argument is not supported by pleadings. Even decisions relied by the plaintiff are no way helpful to the case of the plaintiff to prove Issue Nos.1 to 3 in their favour, because facts and circumstances discussed in the above said rulings are entirely different from the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Viewed from any angle, this Court is of the opinion that plaintiff has failed to prove Issue Nos.1 to 3. Hence, my answers to above Issues are in the negative.
26. ISSUE No.4 : For my reasons and discussion on the above Issues, I proceed to pass the following -
Cont'd..
- 29 - O.S. No.6430/2013
ORDER
Suit filed by the plaintiff against
defendants 1, 3 and 4 is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 2nd day of January, 2017.) (PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA) VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, An&/- Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
Examined on:
P.W.1 : Ravi K. 09-09-2015
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P.1 : Offer letter dated 13-07-2009. Exs.P.2 : Two mails dated 08-06-2012. and P.3 Exs.P.4 : Two mails dated 23-08-2012.
and P.5
Ex.P.6 : Mail dated 28-08-2012.
Exs.P.7 : Mails dated 13-07-2012.
and P.8
Cont'd..
- 30 - O.S. No.6430/2013
Exs.P.8(a) : Mails dated 31-08-212, 20-08-2012 and 8(b) and 8(c) 28-08-2012.
Ex.P.9 : Office copy of legal notice. Exs.P.10 to: Postal receipts. P.13 Exs.P.14 to: Postal acknowledgements. P.17.
Ex.P.18 : Reply notice. Exs.P.19 : Job searching e-mails. to P.60
Exs.P.61 : Employment contract mails dated and P.62 15-6-2012 to 29-8-2012 and 21-8-2014. Exs.P.63 : Mails regarding P.F. withdrawal. to P.88 Exs.P.89 : Travel request forms and insurance and P.90 Policy.
3. WITNESS/ES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
D.W.1 : Mahesh Medhekar 05-08-2016
4.DOCUMENT/S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D.1 : Self attested document (letter) dated 25-04-2013.
Ex.D.2 : Self attested Xerox copy of cheque of HDFC Bank.
(PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA) VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, An&/- Bengaluru.
Cont'd..