Delhi District Court
Rukhenjit Gill vs . Srm Shipping Pvt. Ltd. on 28 March, 2018
Rukhenjit Gill vs. SRM Shipping Pvt. Ltd.
CS No. 16468/16
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TARUN YOGESH
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE:03:
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS:NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No. 16468/16
In the matter of
Sh. Rukhenjit Gill
R/o Apartment No. 1107,
Building No. 21, Heritage City,
M G Road, DLF Phase II,
Gurgaon, Haryana. ... Plaintiff
Versus
SRM Shipping Pvt. Ltd.
Having its registered office at:
21, Basant Lok Complex,
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi110057. ... Defendant
Date of Institution of suit : 14.09.2010
Date on which judgment was reserved : 28.03.2018
Date of pronouncement
:
28.03.2018
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF ARREARS OF SALARY
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff Sh. Rukhenjit Gill has filed suit seeking recovery of Rs. 98,98,407/ towards arrears of salary and other benefits alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 18 % per annum.
2. As averred by plaintiff, he is qualified management professional with 14 - 15 years of extensive exposure in the shipping and Page 1 /9 DOD: 28.03.2018 Rukhenjit Gill vs. SRM Shipping Pvt. Ltd.
CS No. 16468/16logistics industry in India, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Iran, Middle East (UAE & GCC) who is widely respected for his work profile, professionalism and expertise. Being well qualified, having secured several professional degrees interalia 'Terminal Management', 'Risk Management in Logistics', 'Negotiation Skills', 'Practical Agency Matters' from well reputed institutions in the United Kingdom, Dubai and Denmark and with vast experience in shipping and logistics industries, plaintiff was invited to visit the office of Spice Group of Companies (Spice Energy Group) at 326, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon, Haryana to meet the Directors of defendant SRM Shipping Pvt. Ltd. in May 2008.
2.1 It was impressed upon the plaintiff that Spice Group of Companies was being managed by responsible and competent persons either directly or via a complex web of holding companies in India and abroad and plaintiff was also briefed about various projects undertaken by the Spice Group of Companies.
2.2 Copies of Contract 1 w.r.t. Sale contract for used 90,000 bpd refinery between Lohrmann International GmbH and SRM Refineries Pvt. Ltd. and (ii) Contract 2 w.r.t. Services to purchase used oil refinery between ATEP AG Bahnhoffstrasse 21 CH 6300 Zug Switzerland / SRM Refineries Pvt. Ltd. were also provided to plaintiff who was requested to relocate to India and join defendant no. 1 which was a newly incorporated company under the Spice Group of Companies primarily engaged in the Shipping & Logistics business.
2.3 Plaintiff being well placed drawing remuneration approximately $ 11,000/ per month in addition to perks from his previous employment at M & M Militzer & Munch, Azerbaijan was offered remuneration at par and Page 2 /9 DOD: 28.03.2018 Rukhenjit Gill vs. SRM Shipping Pvt. Ltd.
CS No. 16468/16defendant during course of discussion assured and undertook to pay minimum guaranteed bonus of Rs. 25,00,000/ (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) in March 2009 and minimum increment of 10% on the gross salary effective from April 2009. A confirmatory letter to the same effect was given by the CEO of defendant SRM Shipping Pvt. Ltd. and appointment letter dated 07.07.2008 recording details of service conditions and work profile of plaintiff was also issued. Defendant's offer of minimum guaranteed bonus and 10% increment on the gross salary was deliberately not mentioned in the appointment letter, plaintiff, nevertheless, believed their representation and undertaking to keep their promise. 2.4 Plaintiff being apprised about business venture desired by the promoters and management of Spice Group of Companies which included joint venture (JV) structure with internationally reputed company and acquisition of an Indian Logistics Company accepted the offer and agreed to join defendant SRM Shipping Pvt. Ltd. on aforesaid terms and conditions.
2.5 Plaintiff having joined the company, thereafter, successfully arranged fund in excess of US $ 2 million with a private equity investor namely Hearth Industries Pvt. Ltd. on the basis of his personal reputation and credibility. Further, plaintiff has also averred about constant discussions with several of his past contacts and umpteen efforts to arrange capital for the company which was facing financial crisis since February 2009, including meeting with Germany's top private equity investor namely Koenig and Cie. Spice Energy Group, nevertheless, could not provide proper financial model as demanded by the German investor and plaintiff's reputation took a beating. Similarly, plaintiff has also stated Page 3 /9 DOD: 28.03.2018 Rukhenjit Gill vs. SRM Shipping Pvt. Ltd.
CS No. 16468/16about numerous business trips to Europe and Germany and discussions with various international shipping and logistic companies for identifying, short listing and concluding setting up of joint venture with defendant company for execution of Cals Refineries Ltd. Project. In addition, he has also averred about successful buy out of a 19 year old Chennai based Indian Logistics Company namely Indian Overseas Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and identification of suitable local partner in Haldia, West Bengal who would be used to perform stevedoring on the ships and provide cranes and other transport equipments for transporting the cargo from the port to the project site besides referring to a loose agreement between Five Star Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and SRM Shipping Pvt. Ltd. awarding contract of civil work.
2.6 Finally, plaintiff has also averred about successful negotiations concluded with Danish Shipping Group namely Danneborg Group / Nord Scan Line KS / Scanchart Denmark resulting in setting up of joint venture namely NORD SCAN SRM LIMITED and MOU dated 25.04.2009 and COA dated 30.04.2009 executed with Cals Refineries Ltd. for relocation of plant and machinery to the site of new joint venture company NORD SCAN SRM LIMITED.
2.7 Defendant, nevertheless, in the midst of investigation being carried by government intelligence agencies with respect to allegation of violations of FEMA, suddenly for reasons unknown, stopped payment of plaintiff's salary in terms of appointment letter, notwithstanding, the fact that plaintiff had acted professionally and worked overtime in the interest of the company. Further, defendant also failed to honour its letter granting fixed bonus in March 2009 and minimum 10 % increment of salary Page 4 /9 DOD: 28.03.2018 Rukhenjit Gill vs. SRM Shipping Pvt. Ltd.
CS No. 16468/16effective from April 2009 despite repeated requests made by plaintiff to the promoters and Directors of Spice Energy Group for clearing outstanding dues and arrears of salary.
2.8 Plaintiff has also averred about retrenchment of employees of Spice Energy Group working at corporate office 326 Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon who collectively threatened to lodge complaint against illegal decision for retrenching their services and nonpayment of salary, TDS/ arrears. Management apprehending legal action, thereafter, entered into settlement by paying their full and final dues but plaintiff neither received any termination notice nor was paid his full and final dues. Moreover, his official email address rukhen.gill@srmshipping was also turned off suddenly on 08.03.2010 preventing him from discharging his duties. Pained by the unprofessional conduct of defendant who had grossly exploited and used his contacts in India and abroad, plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of Rs. 98,98,407/ towards arrears of salary and other benefits alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 18 % per annum.
3. Perusal of judicial file reveals that plaintiff was directed to pay ad valorem court fee on the amount of Rs. 5,00,00,000 estimated as relief of damages in Clause B of the original plaint by Ld. Joint Registrar, High Court of Delhi vide order dated 14.09.2010 which eventually was not filed and plaintiff's application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC bearing I.A. No. 12885/2010 for withdrawing relief of damages was allowed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 12.03.2012. Further, it is also revealed from judicial record that defendants no. 2 to 6 were struck off from the array of parties by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 09.09.2013 and plaintiff's suit was continued against SRM Shipping Pvt.
Page 5 /9 DOD: 28.03.2018
Rukhenjit Gill vs. SRM Shipping Pvt. Ltd.
CS No. 16468/16
Ltd. as sole defendant.
4. Since service of summons could not be effected upon defendant company through ordinary process and all attempts of service proved futile as premises was found locked so plaintiff was directed to furnish affidavit mentioning address / details of company as available in the records of the Registrar of Companies and plaintiff's application under Order V Rule 20 CPC bearing I.A. No. 14337 of 2013 was allowed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 17.12.2013. Substituted service through publication in Newspapers 'The Statesman' (English) and 'Dainik Jagran' (Hindi) was thereafter carried out and defendant SRM Shipping Pvt. Ltd. was eventually proceeded exparte vide order dated 05.08.2014.
5. Matter was thereafter listed for exparte plaintiff evidence and plaintiff Sh. Rukhenjit Gill has deposed as PW1 by tendering his affidavit Ex. PW1/A and relied upon following documents:
i) Copy of appointment letter dated 07.07.2008 as Ex. PW1/1.
ii)Copy of email dated 23.07.2008 alongwith copy of the Minutes of Meeting dated 21.07.2008 as Ex. PW1/2 (colly).
iii)Copy of letter of expression of interest dated 21.08.2008 as Ex. PW1/3.
iv)Copy of email communication with Koenig & Coe as Ex. PW1/4.
v)Copy of email dated 16.01.2009 as Ex. PW1/5.
vi)Copy of Special Package of incentives for CALS Refinery Limited under WBIS2004 dated 12.02.2009 as Ex. PW1/6.
vii)Copy of email communications with Five Star Logistics as Page 6 /9 DOD: 28.03.2018 Rukhenjit Gill vs. SRM Shipping Pvt. Ltd.
CS No. 16468/16Ex. PW1/7.
viii)Copy of documents related to imports made by Mr. Gagan Deep Rastogi as Mark A.
ix)Print out of Master Data of company obtained from Web page of Ministry of Company Affairs mentioning address of registered office and details as Ex. PW1/9 (colly).
x)Legal notice dated 17.03.2010 as Ex. PW1/10.
xi)Legal notice addressed to SRM Shipping Pvt. Ltd. along with returned envelope as Ex. PW1/11(colly).
xii)Remindercumlegal notice dated 15.04.2010 alongwith postal receipts as Ex. PW1/12 (colly).
xiii)Copy of remindercumlegal notice dated 15.04.2010 alongwith returned envelope as Ex. PW1/13 (colly) and Ex. PW1/14(colly).
xv)Reply dated 03.05.2010 of legal notice as Ex. PW1/15.
6. Plaintiff's evidence was initially closed on the basis of his statement on 28.01.2015. Plaintiff, nonetheless, has thereafter examined Sh. Mangal Pratap Kushwaha, Assistant Accountant who has deposed to be primarily handling plaintiff's account while he was working with the defendant and referred to his affidavit tendered in evidence as Ex. PW2/A and computer generated certified copy of plaintiff's Bank Account bearing No. 131010100502245 maintained with Axis Bank for the period w.e.f. 01.09.2008 upto 31.12.2009 as Ex. PW2/1. No other witness was examined on judicial file and plaintiff's evidence was finally closed on 15.09.2016.
7. Advocate Sh. Vijay Kumar Singh has addressed his Page 7 /9 DOD: 28.03.2018 Rukhenjit Gill vs. SRM Shipping Pvt. Ltd.
CS No. 16468/16submissions by adverting to amended plaint and testimonies of witnesses recorded on judicial file. In addition, he has also filed brief synopsis of plaintiff's arguments for referring to documents and affidavit of certificate dated 28.01.2015 under section 65 B of The Indian Evidence Act for proving electronic records including emails.
8. Since defendant SRM Shipping Pvt. Ltd. has failed to appear in court for contesting plaintiff's suit despite substituted service effected through publication carried out in National Daily Newspapers so testimony of PW1 and PW2 have remained uncontroverted.
9. Copy of appointment letter referred as Ex. PW1/1 discloses that plaintiff was appointed to the post of PresidentDry Operation whereas Clause18 of the letter mentions about salary and allowance package, joining bonus, relocation and reimbursement payable to plaintiff by the defendant company. Clause19 of the appointment letter provides two months notice period in case of termination of contract by either party and plaintiff has asserted that he was prevented from discharging his duties w.e.f. 08.03.2010 but no notice terminating his services was ever issued by the defendant company.
10. Plaintiff has also averred about gross annual emoluments amounting to Rs. 52,26,500/ in terms of Clause18 of the appointment letter and accordingly calculated his monthly salary of Rs. 4,35,542/. Further, he has also alluded to statement of his Bank Account referred as Ex. PW2/1 for asserting that total salary to be paid by defendant during the period of his employment from 07.07.2008 till 28.02.2010 works out to be Rs. 87,10,840/ out of which Rs. 31,67,498/ has been received from defendant whereas arrears of salary amounting to Rs. 55,43,342/ remains Page 8 /9 DOD: 28.03.2018 Rukhenjit Gill vs. SRM Shipping Pvt. Ltd.
CS No. 16468/16unpaid. Next, he has also claimed Rs. 4,35,542/ towards leave encashment for 30 days; Rs. 8,71,004/ towards two months notice period salary and bonus Rs. 25,00,000/ as averred in the plaint and deposed in para no. 39 of affidavit Ex. PW1/A.
11. Plaintiff having rendered his services to defendant during aforesaid period is therefore entitled to claim arrears of salary and other benefits as mentioned in the appointment letter dated 07.07.2008. Plaintiff's suit is therefore decreed for a sum of Rs. 98,98,407/ towards arrears of salary and other benefits alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 11% per annum as per prevailing market rate of interest together with the cost of suit.
12. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
13. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
TARUN Digitally signed by
TARUN YOGESH
YOGESH Date: 2018.03.31
14:50:38 +0530
Announced in the open Court (Tarun Yogesh)
On 28.03.2018 ADJ03/South West
Dwarka /New Delhi
Page 9 /9 DOD: 28.03.2018