Delhi District Court
Ram Kumar Singh vs Radius Synergies Pvt Ltd Etc on 10 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SOMITRA KUMAR
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-6 (EAST),
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. 135/2020
Unique ID No. DLET01-001373-2018
In the matter of:-
Sh. Ram Kumar Singh
S/o Sh. Puran Singh,
R/o N-64, Sector-12, Noida,
U.P. - 201301. ............Plaintiff
VS.
1. Radius Synergies Pvt. Ltd.
(through authorized representatives).
2. Prarthana Priya (Director)
3. Siddharth Shekhar (Additional Director)
All at:-
Registered office at:-
311, ABC Complex, 20-Veer
Savarkar Block, Vikas Marg,
Shakar Pur, Delhi-110092.
Branch office at:-
Plot no.13, Bansal Plaza,
3rd Floor, Sector-06,
Commercial Complex, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075.
...........Defendants
Suit No. 135/20 Ram Kumar Singh Vs. Radius Synergies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 1 of 26
Date of institution : 28.02.2018
Date of Reserving judgment : 05.04.2024
Date of pronouncement : 10.04.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants, seeking recovery of Rs, 13,20,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only), along with pre-suit, pendente-lite and future interest at the rate 18% per annum and cost of the suit.
CASE OF PLAINTIFF
2. In order to justify the recovery of the aforesaid amount from the defendant, the plaintiff has inter-alia pleaded that Defendant No. 1 is a Private Ltd. Company duly registered under the Companies Act and deals in designing, installation and operation of electrical sub- stations (ESS), pre-paid electricity metering and building management systems such as security and surveillance, access control, parking management, biometrics, home automation, RFID and fire alarms; that the defendant no. 2 and 3 are directors of defendant no. 1 company; that the Plaintiff was the employee of the Defendant Company during the tenure of 1 July, 2005 to 31 March, 2016 bearing employee code 'R- 010'; that the plaintiff was appointed on the post of 'Manager- Electrical' in defendant no. 1 company and worked in the capacity of 'Manager-Electrical' until 1st March, 2008; that on 01.03.2008 the Plaintiff as an appreciation and in recognition of his fine work for the Defendant Company was promoted from the position of 'Manager-Electrical' to the more challenging and Suit No. 135/20 Ram Kumar Singh Vs. Radius Synergies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 2 of 26 demanding position of 'GM-Projects' vide letter dated 23.03.2008; that as per letter of promotion dated 23.03.2008 the Plaintiff's remuneration was fixed of Rs. 60,000/- per month with effect from 1st March, 2008; that the Plaintiff served the Defendant Company on the remuneration Rs. 60,000/- per month with effect from 1 March, 2008 until March, 2015; that after a considerable time duration i.e. in March, 2015 the diligent efforts of the Plaintiff were again acknowledged and the remuneration of the Plaintiff was increased from Rs. 60,000/- per month to Rs. 1,00,000/- per month from the coming financial year i.e. from April, 2015- March, 2016; that the first enhanced salary was due payable in first week of May, 2015 and in the first week of every calendar month thereafter; that the Defendant no. 1 used the aforesaid enhancement of the salary as a 'Carrot and stick tactic' and encouraged the Plaintiff to work his sweat and brow to the benefit of the Defendant Company and the Plaintiff kept on toiling under the anticipation of the payment of enhanced remuneration; that the Plaintiff was also issued post-dated cheques against the salary due for the month of October, 2014 to January, 2015 bearing number 110486, 110487, 110488, 110489 all drawn on Axis Bank, Ghaziabad for an amount of Rs. 60,000/- each, dated 16.03.2015, 20.03.2015, 26.03.2015 & 28.03.2015 respectively; that the Plaintiff was only asked to present the cheque bearing 110486, dated 16.03.2015 and was asked not to present the subsequent cheques of the series on one pretext or the other until the validity of the cheques expired; that the last part payment against the total arrear due before March, 2015 was made to the Plaintiff through NEFT transfer was on 06.01.2016, for an amount of Rs. 1 lac; that Plaintiff was Suit No. 135/20 Ram Kumar Singh Vs. Radius Synergies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 3 of 26 continuously promised the payment of the arrears of salary; that the Plaintiff kept on working owing to the number of years he had given to the Defendant Company and in order to protect the interest of the Defendant company after the death of its the then Director; that the Plaintiff had time and again requested the Defendants for the payment of the arrears of his salary/ salary but to no avail and thus he was finally constrained to resign from the Defendant Company due to his inability to work without payment of salary/arrears; that the Plaintiff's resignation was accepted and he was relieved from the Defendant Company on 31 March, 2016 in the capacity of 'GM- Projects; that the Plaintiff was issued a letter of recommendation dated 9th May, 2016, which he received in his email dated 12th May, 2016, reflecting his last salary drawn and the duration of his service rendered to the Defendant Company; that the Plaintiff demanded his arrears from the Defendants, to which he was promised that all the arrears would be made good soon enough; that owing to the uncertainty, the Plaintiff was allowed to retain the company car of make Honda City' bearing. registration number 'DL 9CU 4999' until the arrears of salary was duly paid to him by the Defendants; that the arrears of remuneration has not yet been paid, but the Defendant Company breached its promise and requested for the return of the car in January, 2018 upon the assurance that the arrears would be cleared within a week from the date; that upon the assurance and promise by the company the car of make 'Honda City' bearing registration number 'DL 9CU 4999' was returned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant company on 07/01/2018 against a written acknowledgment duly signed by the authorized signatory of the Defendant company; that the Plaintiff Suit No. 135/20 Ram Kumar Singh Vs. Radius Synergies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 4 of 26 was last paid in the month of January, 2016 and no remuneration was paid thereafter; that the Plaintiff has till date not been paid his arrears of salary; that the Plaintiff has given several reminders to the Defendant company telephonically for the clearance of the outstanding remuneration and has on every occasion received assurances that the arrears shall be made good soon enough; that the Plaintiff even wrote emails seeking clearing of his outstanding salary on the ground that he was in dire need of money for his treatment, yet his requests were left unheard; that the plaintiff sent emails dated 2nd October, 2015, 15th January, 2016 & 8th February, 2016, to the Defendant no. 1 regarding arrears of salary; that since the inception the salary was paid irregularly and there was a huge arrears of salary which has remained unpaid and the Plaintiff has forsaken the same considering the same to be time barred; that the last payment of Rs. 1 Lac, received by the Plaintiff was against the arrear of salary before February, 2015, outstanding arrear of which has now been forsaken by the Plaintiff being time barred; that the total outstanding that is being claimed being within time, payable to the Plaintiff is Rs. 13,20,000/-i.e. salary due from February, 2015 to March, 2016; that the the Plaintiff through the present suit claims the arrear in salary for month of February-March, 2015 @ Rs. 60,000/- per month and for months of April, 2015- March, 2016 Rs. 1,00,000/- per month.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANTS
3. Upon service of summons for settlement of issues of this suit, the defendants have contested this suit by filing their joint written statement. In the written statement of the defendants, it is Suit No. 135/20 Ram Kumar Singh Vs. Radius Synergies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 5 of 26 inter- alia pleaded that the present suit filed by plaintiff is a gross abuse of the process of law in as much as there is no cause of action in favor of plaintiff and against the defendants to institute the present suit; that it is the case of plaintiff himself that he had resigned on 1.10.2015, and in the absence of any document to show that either he was re-employed thereafter or he rendered services thereafter, there is no ground for claiming remuneration after October, 2015, till March, 2016, that too, at the enhanced rate; that the document, in the nature of Experience Certificate, dated 9.5.2016, allegedly issued by defendant Company is forged and fabricated document as no such Experience Letter, at any point of time, was issued by defendant Company or any of its Office bearers, in favor of plaintiff rather, it is the plaintiff who vide his Email dated 11.5.2016, requested Mr. Hari Singh, one of the Directors of defendant Company, to issue a Reliving Letter to him, as drafted by him, so as to help him in getting a better job opportunity; that said Draft Letter, sent to Hari Singh, the plaintiff not only extended tenure of his employment but also enhanced his remuneration; that it is a matter of record that though, having received the Draft Reliving Letter, the defendant could not issue the same; that the plaintiff had shared his Draft Reliving Letter with Hari Singh who alone could have issued such Letter, however, the Letter dated 9.5.2016, at Page 24 of the Suit, is signed by Radhika Gupta; that Ms. Radhika Gupta did not issue any such Letter to plaintiff nor the Letter bears her signature, as the same has been forged by plaintiff; that a perusal of documents, bearing her signature, which are annexed herewith as Annexure D-2, leaves no room for any doubt over the manner in which she used to sign; that neither of her signatures tally with Suit No. 135/20 Ram Kumar Singh Vs. Radius Synergies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 6 of 26 the signature, assigned on the Reliving Letter, dated 9.5.2016, relied upon by the plaintiff; that no amount is due to plaintiff and accordingly, no amount is payable by defendant Company and the same gets strengthened from the fact that no details, of whatsoever nature, of alleged outstanding remuneration, be it the amount or the period, has been provided by plaintiff rather an imaginary amount, without specifying as to how it became due and payable, has been claimed by way of present Suit; that the assertion of plaintiff, with regard to his remuneration having been increased from Rs. 60,000/- per month to Rs. 1 Lakh per month for the Financial year 2015-2016 is imaginary and is a creation of his fertile imagination, as there is no corroborating Letter or document, issued by defendant of credence; that it is a prevalent norm and practice that whenever there is an increment in the salary, the same is duly communicated, in writing, to the employee and nothing is left for imagination, as has been done in the present case; that the defendant Company had paid a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh to plaintiff as a lump sum amount against his outstanding salary through Bank on 6.1.2016, and was not as and by way of monthly salary, as has been alleged by plaintiff; that after defraying Rs. 1 Lakh, the defendant Company also paid a sum of Rs. 80,000/-, in cash, to plaintiff to settle his outstanding salary, against the cheques issued to him; that no amount, against salary, is due and payable, to the plaintiff, by the defendant; and the present suit deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone; that, the present suit deserves to be dismissed due to mis-joinder of parties, so much so that though the plaintiff has sought relief against defendant No.1, being the Company, it has impleaded its Director as well as its Additional Director without claiming any Suit No. 135/20 Ram Kumar Singh Vs. Radius Synergies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 7 of 26 relief against them and without specifying any role to them so as to make them jointly and severely liable for the reliefs, prayed for. Rest, all the allegations made in the plaint were denied by the defendants.
FRAMING OF ISSUES
4. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor Judge on 25.07.2018:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree in the sum of Rs. 13,20,000 against the defendant along with interest, if any, and if yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
(2) Whether the plaintiff has filed the present suit on the basis of forged and fabricated documents? OPD."
(3) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of
parties? OPD".
(4) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to
file the present suit? OPD
(5) Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
5.1 In support of his claim, the plaintiff examined only himself
as PW1. During examination in chief, the plaintiff viz. PW1 Sh.
Ram Kumar Singh had deposed in the line of plaint of this suit and tendered affidavit Ex.PW1/1 in his evidence and relied upon the following documents in support of the plaint:-
i) Ex.PW-1/A, copy of plaintiff's Adhar card.
Suit No. 135/20 Ram Kumar Singh Vs. Radius Synergies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 8 of 26
ii) Ex.PW-1/B, copy of the plaintiff's ID proof, issued
by the defendant company.
iii) Ex.PW-1/C, copy of the authorization of signatory
issued by the defendant company.
iv) Ex.PW-1/C1 to C8, the emails sent to the plaintiff by
the defendant's company.
(v) Ex.PW-1/D, copy of letter of experience sent by
defendant's company on the e-mail (dated 12.05.2016).
(vi) Ex.PW-1/E, copy of promotion letter dated 23.03.2008 issued by the defendant's company in his favour.
vii) Ex.PW-1/F, copy of four cheques (running into two pages) bearing no. 110486,87,88 and 89 (out of which cheque bearing no. 110486 was encashed).
viii) Ex.PW-1/G, copy of Form-16 issued by the defendant's company which was received on e-mail.
ix) Ex.PW-1/H, copy of confirmation dated 07.01.2018 issued by the defendant's company that it has received a car No. DL-9CU-4999 registration papers along with the keys from the plaintiff on 07.01.2018.
x) Ex.PW-1/I, resignation letter sent by the plaintiff to the defendant's company through e-mail on 02.10.2015, 15.01.2016 and 08.02.2016.
xi) Ex.PW-1/J, copy of internet generated salary account statement.
5.2 The PW-1 was examined and during the examination in chief of the PW-1, the nomenclature of the affidavit and documents as exhibited is mentioned as stated above starting with the prefix PW1, however, due to oversight the nomenclature of the affidavit and documents as marked on the documents has Suit No. 135/20 Ram Kumar Singh Vs. Radius Synergies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 9 of 26 been prefixed with CW-1/ instead of PW-1/. Therefore, for the avoidance of any doubt, it is clarified that the affidavit and documents shall be referred by the nomenclature as given to them in the examination chief as recorded on 06.07.2022.
5.3 PW-1 was cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsel for the defendants. During cross-examination plaintiff had inter alia deposed that fact mentioned in the affidavit in para 6 was not mentioned in the plaint; that the PW1 admitted that he resigned from defendant company on 01.10.2015 and that in his communication dated 08.02.2016, he mentioned that he had resigned from the defendant's company on 02.10.2015; that said resignation was not accepted; that he tendered his resignation on 31.03.2016; that the defendant/company did not communicate about acceptance of his resignation, however, as he was not getting any salary from the company, he decided not to continue with his employment; that he was dealing with Oil India Ltd. during the course of his employment with defendant company; he admitted that during the course of his employment with defendant company, he was dealing with Oil India Ltd; that Directors of the defendant company namely Sh. A. K. Singh and Mr. H. S. Singh used to assign the work to him and he used to report to them; and normally the report used to be given in the course of discussion with the Directors; that at times, he used to submit the report in writing as well; that his official e-mail ID [email protected] has been surrendered to the company in March 2016, however, the documents have been downloaded from his personal e-mail ID; that he did not write any letter to the Admn. of defendant company, however, they blocked his access to the official e-mail ID; that he was asked to follow up the Suit No. 135/20 Ram Kumar Singh Vs. Radius Synergies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 10 of 26 pending payments with different company and was asked to sign the documents relating to the contract with Oil India which was coming to an end; he admitted that he had been dealing with Oil India Ltd. during the course of employment and prior to 01.10.2015 as well; that some of the documentation and payment remained unresolved on 01.10.2015 with Oil India Ltd; he denied the suggestion that he ceases to be an employee of the defendant company after 01.10.2015 and he was asked by the company to complete the left over work with Oil India Ltd.; that he did not submit any report in writing regarding the work done by him from 01.10.2015 to 31.03.2016 to defendant company; he denied the suggestion that he had not submitted any report in writing as he had resigned from the company on 01.10.2015; that the director Mr. A. K. Singh died on 09.10.2015; he denied the suggestion that the company requested him to complete the work on humanitarian consideration after the demise of Mr. A. K. Singh on 09.10.2015; he voluntarily stated that he was employee of the defendant company; that he has not placed on record copy of resignation dated 31.03.2016; he voluntarily stated that as his payments were due and he was asking for settlement, therefore he had to leave the company; that he did not give in writing the details of the outstanding dues towards his salary and or entitlements; that he did not work in the company after 31.03.2016; he admitted that he had tendered his resignation on 01.10.2015 but the same was not accepted by the company; that he does not recollect as to whether it is mentioned in the employment letter that acceptance of resignation by the company is a must for giving it effect; he admitted that the company did not accept his resignation dated 31.03.2016 as well; that the Suit No. 135/20 Ram Kumar Singh Vs. Radius Synergies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 11 of 26 company did not ask him to continue, in writing, after his resignation dated 01.10.2015, however, he was asked during the course of discussion in the meeting; he admitted that the date of the meeting or the person attending it has not been mentioned in his plaint or affidavit; that he had shared a draft of "Experience Certificate" with the company with a request to issue it in his favour as directed by Mr. H.S. Singh over phone and the "Experience Certificate" filed alongwith the suit was drafted by him and was issued as it is by the company; that he did not write to the company regarding outstanding payment towards his salary before tendering his resignation dated 01.10.2015 or 31.03.2016; that the resignation letter was addressed to the Director of the company; that the company had given him a car in the course of his employment; that he admitted that he had not surrendered the vehicle to the company at the time of tendering his resignation, be it dated 01.10.2015 or 31.03.2016; he voluntarily stated that the Director asked him to retain the vehicle the same would be adjusted the at the time of full and final settlement; that the Director told me verbally during the course of our meeting and nothing was in writing; that he surrendered the vehicle on 07, January, 2018 to the company; that his full and final account with the company was not settled on 07.01.2018 rather the company assured him to settle it within a week from the date of surrender of vehicle; that since the company did not ask me to surrender the vehicle in writing he did not ask the company to complete his full and final account in writing as the same was discussed verbally; that he did not write to the company seeking finalization of his account after surrendering the vehicle as the same was communicated verbally; that on Suit No. 135/20 Ram Kumar Singh Vs. Radius Synergies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 12 of 26 07.01.2018 itself, Mr. H.S. Singh told me verbally that your full and final account will be settled within a week; at this point, the witness refers to para P of the plaint and deposed that he communicated either with Mr. H.S. Singh or Mr. A. K. Singh, directors of the company; that he has not communicated any other other person in the defendant-company regarding his outstanding dues except the persons named above; that Ms. Radhika Gupta used to sit in another office of the company, namely M/s Radius Synergies India Pvt. Ltd.; that he was the employee of M/s Radius Synergies Pvt. Ltd; he admitted that he was asked by the company to complete the assignment which was pending on the date of his resignation, i.e. 01.10.2015; that the company had requested him to continue service on the humanitarian ground due to sudden demise of Mr. A. K. Singh; he denied the suggeston that the company had made it clear that no remuneration will be paid for the services having been extended by the plaintiff on humanitarian consideration; he admitted that the content of "Experience Certificate" was sent by him to the company which was issued to him without changes as per direction of Mr. H.S. Singh; that he did not submit the progress report of the assignment given to him after 01.10.2015 to Mr. H.S. Singh as it was discussed orally in meeting; that he had drawn his last salary before February 2015; that he did not get salary after February 2015; that he did not write to the company regarding his outstanding salary after February 2015 onwards; he volunatarily stated that the company had given me the cheques which they did not allow him to present the same to his banker; that he admitted that cheques were in his possession and he was told by the director that the old cheques will be Suit No. 135/20 Ram Kumar Singh Vs. Radius Synergies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 13 of 26 replaced by new cheques; that it was not communicated to him in writing rather was told verbally; he voluntarily stated that he was told by the company to present one cheque in the bank for encashment and the said cheque was honoured.
5.4 Thereafter, vide a separate statement of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's evidence was closed on 27.09.2023.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
6. Defendants have opted not to lead any evidence in their defence. Vide separate statement of the Ld. Counsel for the defendants, the defendants' evidence was closed on 03.04.2024.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
7 Final arguments were advanced at length by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff Ms. Himanshi Bhowal and Ld. Counsel for defendants Sh. Neeraj Kumar Singh.
7.1 During the argument, the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff reiterated the case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint. It is also argued by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the resignation dated 01.10.2015 of the plaintiff was not accepted by the defendant no. 1 company; that the plaintiff was part and parcel of the defendant no. 1 company after 01.10.2015 and several communications received on the plaintiff's official email after 01.10.2015 have been placed on record including email dated 07.12.2015; that the defendant no. 1 issued a authority letter dated 15.10.2015 addressed to Oil India Ltd. in favour of the plaintiff; that the plaintiff has also placed on record salary bank account statement showing non-receipt of salary from the defendant no. 1 company; and that defendants in their written Suit No. 135/20 Ram Kumar Singh Vs. Radius Synergies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 14 of 26 statement termed the Letter of Experience dated 09.105.2016 as forged and fabricated document while in cross examination the case of the defendant is that it was drafted by the plaintiff and issued as it is on his request.
7.2 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the defendants argued that as per plaintiff's own admission, he resigned from the defendant no. 1 company on 02.10.2015 and there is no document on record to show his re-employment with defendant no. 1 company, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the salary for which he is praying for; that the plaintiff in his email dated 08.02.2016, reiterated his resignation from the defendant no. 1 company and made reference to his support to the company in emergency situation; that Experience Certificate was drafted by the plaintiff and was issued, as it is, at the asking of the plaintiff, therefore, the period of employment of the plaintiff as well as last drawn salary were filled up by the plaintiff in the said certificate; that the defendant did not lead any evidence in the matter as the plaintiff was reporting to the Mr. A. K. Singh who passed away on 09.10.2015; that plaintiff was in possession of the company's car along with driver for the period from 2016 to January 6, 2018; that the plaintiff extended assistance to the defendant no. 1 company on entirely humanitarian consideration after the demise of Mr. A. K. Singh on 09.10.2015 and no remuneration was promised for the same.
FINDINGS:
8. Having considered the submissions of both parties and perusing the record carefully, the findings on the issues framed are as follows:
Suit No. 135/20 Ram Kumar Singh Vs. Radius Synergies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 15 of 26 ISSUE NO. 1:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree in the sum of Rs. 13,20,000 against the defendant alongwith interest, if any, and if yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
9. The onus to prove the said issue was on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed that he worked with defendant no. 1 company till 31.03.2016 on a salary of Rs. 60,000/- per month from 01.03.2008 till March 2015 and after that on account of diligent efforts his salary was increased to Rs. 1 lac per month from April 2015. It is submitted that the first enhanced salary was payable in the first week of May 2015 and in the first week of every calendar month thereafter. The plaintiff averred that he resigned from the defendant no. 1 company on 31.03.2016.
10. The plaintiff has claimed an amount of Rs. 13, 20,000/- as arrears of salary/remuneration from February 2015 to March 2016 with arrears of salary for month of February-March, 2015 @60,000/- per month and for months of April 2015 to March 2016@Rs. 1 lac per month.
11. The defendants contested the plaintiff's assertion of employment till 31.03.2016 submitting that admittedly as per the email dated 01.10.2015 (sent on 02.10.2015) Ex. PW-1/I employment, the plaintiff resigned from the defendant no. 1 company, and in the absence of any document of his re-
employment after the resignation on 01.10.2015 or absence of any document to show that he rendered service to the defendant no. 1 company after his resignation, the plaintiff cannot claim any remuneration after October 2015 till March 2016.
Suit No. 135/20 Ram Kumar Singh Vs. Radius Synergies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 16 of 26
12. The plaintiff has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/1 that he sent the email dated 01.10.2015 to defendant no. 1 company on account of non payment of salary for 11 months and said resignation letter dated 01.10.2015 was never accepted by defendant no. 1 company and he continued to work in defendant no. 1 company even after 01.10.2015 till 31.03.2016 as General Manager-Projects. In support of his deposition that he continued to work in the defendant's no. 1 company even after October 2015, the plaintiff relied on Ex. PW- 1/C, which is an authorization letter dated 15.10.2015 addressed to Oil India Limited in favour of the plaintiff by defendant no. 1 company to sign documents related to operation and maintenance contract, performance guarantee, and retention money on behalf of company. The plaintiff has also placed on record various email communications Ex. PW-1/C1 to C8 the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 company on his official email of the defendant no. 1 company. In fact, in its reply to the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC filed on 08.01.2019, the defendants admitted that vide emails (marked as Ex. Ex. PW-1/C1 to C8 during examination in chief of the plaintiff/PW1), the plaintiff was kept in the loop, in communications of the defendant, on plaintiff's volition to extend support to defendant no. 1 company during difficult times.
13. The said authority letter dated 15.10.2015 Ex. PW-1/C and emails Ex. PW-1/C1 to C8 for the period from October 2015 till December 2015 reflects that the plaintiff was part of the defendant no. 1 company and rendered services for and on behalf of the defendant no. 1 company even after 01.10.2015. Further, during cross examination of the plaintiff, it is established that Suit No. 135/20 Ram Kumar Singh Vs. Radius Synergies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 17 of 26 during the course of his employment with defendant no. 1 company, the plaintiff used to deal with Oil India Ltd. Further, it is deposed by the plaintiff after 01.10.2015, he was asked by the company to follow up on the pending payments with different companies and was asked to sign documents relating to the contract with Oil India Ltd. It is admitted by the plaintiff he dealt with Oil India Ltd. during the course of his employment and prior to 01.10.2015 as well. Further, during cross examination of the plaintiff, it is established that defendant no. 1 company had asked the plaintiff to complete the assignments which were pending on the date of his resignation i.e. 01.10.2015. In said cross examination, it is also proved that the defendant no. 1 company requested the plaintiff to continue service on humanitarian grounds due to the sudden demise of Mr. A.K. Singh. The plaintiff denied the suggestion that the defendant no. 1 company had made it clear that no remuneration would be paid for the services having been extended by the plaintiff on humanitarian consideration.
14. The plaintiff maintained a consistent stand in his cross- examination and nothing to the contrary could be culled out in his cross-examination. The deposition of the plaintiff on oath and the documentary evidence brought by the plaintiff on record amply proves that he continued to work in the defendant no. 1 company even after 01.10.2015. Even the defendants admitted that the plaintiff continued to work for the defendant no. 1 company, however, the same was for completing the pending work and on humanitarian grounds after the demise of Mr. A. K. Singh. The defendants have not placed on record any communication or documents to show that it was agreed between Suit No. 135/20 Ram Kumar Singh Vs. Radius Synergies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 18 of 26 the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 company that the plaintiff's continuance of the work after 01.10.2015 would be without any remuneration for the services rendered by him. It is a settled law that the party who raises a contention must prove it. As per section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden to prove a particular fact lies on the person who wishes the court to believe in its existence. However, in the present case, the absence of any evidence led by the defendants to prove their contentions, their averments were not proved on record.
15. Therefore, from the documentary evidence led by the plaintiff, it is established that the plaintiff continued to work in defendant no. 1 company beyond 01.10.2015.
16. As to the period after 01.10.2015 for which the plaintiff continued to work in defendant no. 1 company, the plaintiff has claimed that he continued to work in defendant no. 1 company till 31.03.2016. However, the documents including the authority letter dated 15.10.2015 Ex. PW-1/C and emails Ex. PW-1/C1 to C8 do not prove that the plaintiff worked for the defendant no. 1 company beyond the month of December, 2015.
17. The plaintiff relied on a Letter of Experience dated 09.05.2016 Ex. PW-1/D wherein the period of employment of the plaintiff with defendant no. 1 company has been mentioned as from 01.07.2005 to 31.03.2016. However, during the cross- examination of the plaintiff, it has come on record that the said Letter of Experience was drafted by the plaintiff himself and was issued as it is by defendant no. 1 company at the request of the plaintiff. Further, the said Experience certificate Ex. PW-1/D was signed by one Ms. Radhika Gupta. The plaintiff in his cross-
Suit No. 135/20 Ram Kumar Singh Vs. Radius Synergies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 19 of 26 examination on 27.07.2023 admitted that Ms. Radhika Gupta used to sit in the sister concern of the defendant no. 1 company. The plaintiff has not placed on record any document that Ms. Radhika Gupta was authorized to issue such Experience certificate. In view admission of the plaintiff that the Experience Certificate Ex. PW-1/D was drafted by him and was issued at his request as it is, the Court is not inclined to rely on the content of the said documents particularly as to the final date of employment as well as the last drawn salary by the plaintiff.
18. Moreover, there is nothing on record that proves that the plaintiff rendered any service to defendant no. 1 company after the month of December 2015.
19. As regards the arrears of the salary, it is established that the plaintiff was in employment of defendant no. 1 company for the period from February 2015 till December 2015. The plaintiff has deposed on oath about non payment of his arrears of his salary as well as placed on record emails Ex. PW-1/I that were sent by the plaintiff to defendant no. 1 company seeking payment of his arrears of salary. The copy of salary bank statement Ex. PW-1/J was also placed on record. The plaintiff has also placed on record a copy of Form-16 of the plaintiff for the assessment year 2015-2016 reflecting that no payment was made by the defendant no. 1 company to the plaintiff in the last quarter of the financial year 2014-2015. The defendants in their written statement stated that no amount against the salary, is due and payable, to the plaintiff, by the defendant. However, the defendant has failed to place on record any documentary evidence about the payment of salary/remuneration even for the Suit No. 135/20 Ram Kumar Singh Vs. Radius Synergies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 20 of 26 period admitted by the defendant i.e. till 01.10.2015. The defendant has also not placed on record any reply to the emails Ex. PW-1/I of the plaintiff denying the defendant no. 1's company liability to pay any arrears of salary to the plaintiff. Moreover, the defendant has not led any evidence to disprove the claim of arrears of salary of the plaintiff.
20. In view of this, it is established that the defendant no. 1 company is liable to pay arrears of the salary of the plaintiff.
21. As regards the claim of the plaintiff defendant no. 1 on account of diligent efforts, his salary was increased to Rs. 1 lac per month from April 2015, in support of his contention that the plaintiff relied on the Letter of Experience dated 09.05.2016 Ex. PW-1/D wherein the last drawn salary of the plaintiff was mentioned as Rs. 1 lac. However, the plaintiff has not placed on record any communication of the month of March or April 2015 by way of which his salary was increased from Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 1 lac. The plaintiff has claimed a significant raise in his salary from the month of April 2015. It is inexplicable that a company would give such kind of raise in salary to its employee without any written communication particularly in view of fact that the plaintiff has himself placed on record Ex. PW-1/E which is a letter of promotion and increase of salary of the plaintiff issued by defendant no. 1 company in the year 2008.
22. In view of the above discussion, the Court finds the contention of the plaintiff of increase in salary to Rs. 1 lac from the months of April 2015 untenable.
23. Further, from the statement of bank account Ex. PW- 1/J(Colly) of the plaintiff it can be seen that the plaintiff received Suit No. 135/20 Ram Kumar Singh Vs. Radius Synergies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 21 of 26 two payments from Defendant no. 1 company of Rs. 60,000/- each after February 2015, the first payment was received on 12.05.2015 by way of NEFT, and the second payment was received on 09.06.2015 by way of clearance of cheque. The said two payments of Rs. 60,000/- each clearly show that the plaintiff had received salary for two months i.e. May and June.
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the plaintiff is entitled to arrears of his salary from February 2015 to December 2015 @60,000/- per month except for the months of May and June. In other words, the plaintiff is entitled to arrears of salary for nine months amounting to Rs. 5,40.000/-. However, the plaintiff himself admitted in his plaint that a payment of Rs. 1 lakh was made by the defendant no. 1 company on 06.01.2016 to the plaintiff for part payment of salary prior to February 2015. The plaintiff has not placed anything on record that the said payment was for arrears of salary prior to February 2015. It is inexplicable as to why defendant no. 1 company would make a payment of Rs. 1 lakh to the plaintiff in the month of January 2016 for payment of arrears of salary prior to the month of February 2015. Therefore, it is not proved that the said payment of Rs. 1 lakh was for payment of arrears of salary prior to February 2015. In view of this, the said payment of Rs. 1 lakh is liable to be adjusted for arrears of salary that defendant no. 1 company is liable to pay to the plaintiff for the period from February 2015 to December 2015.
25. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 4,40,000/- (Rs. Four Lacs and Forty Thousand Only) from the defendant no. 1 company. As regards the interest to be paid Suit No. 135/20 Ram Kumar Singh Vs. Radius Synergies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 22 of 26 on the said amount, the last salary to be paid was for the month of December 2015, which was payable in the first week of January 2016. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the plaintiff is entitled to a reasonable interest @7% per annum from 07.01.2016 on the said amount till the date of decree and future interest @6 % per annum simple on the principal sum adjudged from the date of decree till realization of the amount.
26. In view of the above findings, the issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no. 1 and it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of 4,40,000/- (Rs. Four Lacs and Forty Thousand Only) from defendant no. 1 company along with a reasonable interest @7% interest from 07.01.2016 on the said amount till the date of decree and future interest @6% per annum simple on the principal sum adjudged from the date of decree till realization of the amount.
ISSUE NO. 2:
"2. Whether the plaintiff has filed the present suit on the basis of forged and fabricated documents? OPD."
27. The burden to prove this issue was on the defendant. Apart from averment in written statement, the defendants have not led any evidence to prove that the plaintiff has filed the present suit based on the forged and fabricated document. In fact, the defendants have not led any defendant evidence in the matter. Therefore, it is not proved that the documents as placed on record by the plaintiff are forged and fabricated. Thus, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Suit No. 135/20 Ram Kumar Singh Vs. Radius Synergies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 23 of 26 ISSUE NO. 3:
"3. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? OPD".
28. The onus to prove the said issue was on the defendants. The defendants in their written have averred that the plaintiff has sought relief against defendant no. 1 being the company, however, it has impleaded the director and additional director of defendant no. 1 company as defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 3 respectively. It is averred by the defendants that no relief has been claimed against the defendant no. 2 and 3 and no role of said defendant no. 2 and 3 has been specified so as to make them jointly and severally liable for the reliefs prayed for. In view of the said averment, the defendants had discharged their initial burden of proof and after that, it was for the plaintiff to prove the necessity of impleadment of defendant no. 2 and 3 in the matter.
29. Perusal of the plaint shows that there have been no averments regarding defendant no. 2 and 3 in the entire plaint. In fact, there is no mention of defendants no. 2 and 3 in the entire plaint except the memo of parties. The plaintiff has not filed a single document including any communication on record to show that defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 3 were in any way involved in the employment of the plaintiff in the defendant no. 1 company or any assurances regarding payment of arrears of salary were given by the said defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 3 to the plaintiff. In his cross-examination on 06.07.2022, the plaintiff specifically stated that the directors of the plaintiff, namely, Mr. A.K. Singh and Mr. H.S. Singh used to assign the Suit No. 135/20 Ram Kumar Singh Vs. Radius Synergies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 24 of 26 work to him and he used to report to them. No role of defendants no. 2 and 3 was claimed either in plaint or evidence by way of affidavit nor in any documents filed on record by the plaintiff.
30. Further, defendant no. 1 is a private limited company having a separate persona from that of its members and its employees/directors. The plaintiff was in employment of defendant no. 1 company. The plaintiff has not alleged any fraud on the part of the directors of the defendant no. 1 company. Therefore, there is no way defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 3 can be fastened with liability for the arrears of the salary which is due to the plaintiff.
31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, issue no. 3 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. However, the finding on the said issue does not have any bearing on the liability of the defendant no. 1 company in terms of finding on the issue no. 1.
ISSUE NO. 4:
"4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD".
32. The onus to prove the said issue was on the defendant. The defendants have opted not to lead any evidence in the matter. However, in view of the finding with respect to issue no. 1 wherein the plaintiff has been held to be entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 4,40,000/- from the defendant no. 1 company, the plaintiff has a valid cause of action to file the present suit. Thus, this issue is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Suit No. 135/20 Ram Kumar Singh Vs. Radius Synergies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 25 of 26 RELIEF
33. In view of my aforesaid findings, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no. 1 for recovery of the amount of Rs. 4,40,000/- (Rs. Four Lacs and Forty Thousand). The plaintiff is also awarded a reasonable interest @ 7% p.a. from 07.01.2016 on the said amount till the date of decree and future interest @6 % per annum simple on the principal sum adjudged from the date of decree till realization of the amount.
34. The cost of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff, which will be reflected in the decree-sheet.
35. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Pronounced in the open court on 10th day of April, 2024 (SOMITRA KUMAR) ADJ-06, EAST District KKD, COURTS, Delhi Suit No. 135/20 Ram Kumar Singh Vs. Radius Synergies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 26 of 26