Bangalore District Court
Ms. Raina Kumari vs The Managing Director on 23 September, 2015
SHEET FOR JUDGEMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE SMALL CAUSES SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AT BENGALURU. (SCCH-22)
Dated this the 23rd day of September 2015.
Present: Sri.N.Subramanya, M.Com., LLB.,
XX ASCJ & Member, MACT, Bangalore.
S.C. No.294/2013
Plaintiffs: Ms. Raina Kumari,
D/o Sri. Suresh Prasad Verma,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at No.85, Srinivas House,
Domlur, 7th Cross,
Bangalore - 560 071.
(By Lex Justicia, Advs.)
-vs-
Defendant: The Managing Director,
R2 International Consulting (India)
Private Limited,
No.499, JK House,
Amarjyothi Layout,
Domlur 1st Stage,
Bangalore - 560 071.
(By Kiran S. Rozario, Adv.)
2 S.C. No.294/2013
SCCH-22
JUDGMENT
This is suit for decree directing defendant to pay a sum of Rs.36,720/- towards arrears of salary for the month of June 2012.
2. The brief plaint averments are that the plaintiff was appointed as Technical Consultant on 07.12.2010 with defendant on monthly salary of Rs.37,500/-. On 26.06.2012 defendant issued letter to the plaintiff stating that she has been relieved from her services and informed that they will pay salary till 30th June 2012. Accordingly, plaintiff resigned from her post and it was accepted and she was relieved from 26.06.2012. Defendant has to pay salary of Rs.36,720/- for June 2012. Plaintiff sent a legal notice to pay the same, but he has not paid. The defendant has also not paid employees contribution and not released Form No.16 under IT Act. Hence, prays to decree the suit.
3. Defendant appeared through the counsel and filed the W/S and submitted that the suit is not maintainable, 3 S.C. No.294/2013 SCCH-22 there is no cause of action. Plaintiff has not approached court with clean hands. Plaintiff is guilty of serious breach of terms and conditions of the contract of employment and committed offence under the IT Act. The plaintiff was working upto 26.06.2012 and resigned, during her employment plaintiff was entrusted with the confidential software data, source codes and development works of clients based in India and abroad. Plaintiff colluded with one Mr. Vivek Kumar employee of defendant and committed offence of theft, criminal breach of trust, hacking of computer data, tampering with confidential electronic, uploading/downloading of electronic data and cheating and have caused the defendant company to suffer valuable loss and plaintiff has made wrongful gain. Due to unethical practices of Vivek Kumar, he was questioned about his association with other companies and he was relieved on 26.06.2012 and immediately all of a sudden plaintiff also requested to be relieved. The defendant requested her to stay and perform all relieving formalities, the plaintiff was 4 S.C. No.294/2013 SCCH-22 highly abusive and hence she was relieved. The plaintiff has informed that she has to submit all passwords, email addresses, company data and to submit herself to the internal audit and investigation for being eligible to receive full and final settlement. But, she has failed to do so, she has violated provisions of terms and conditions of employment and hence, she is disentitled from claiming any relief. The defendant has initiated criminal proceedings against the plaintiff and her accompliances before the Hon'ble 4th ACMM Court. Defendant is ready and willing to pay arrears only if plaintiff clears all the formalities. He has already paid the PF to the concerned authorities, he has denied all other plaint averments and hence, prays to dismiss the suit.
4. Plaintiff herself examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.6 and closed her side. The defendant examined as DW-1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to D.6 and closed his side.
5. Both sides have not argued.
5 S.C. No.294/2013
SCCH-22
6. The points that would arise for my consideration are as follows:
1. Whether plaintiff proves that defendant is due a sum of Rs.36,720/- towards arrears of salary for the month of June 2012?
2. Whether defendant proves that Plaintiff violated the terms of contract of employment and committed breach of trust etc.?
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for reliefs act?
4. What Order and Decree?
7. My answer to the above points is:-
1. Point No.1: Negative
2. Point No.2: Affirmative
3. Point No.3: Negative
4. Point No.4: As per final order for the Following:-
REASONS
8. Point No.1 and 2:-
The undisputed facts of the case are that the plaintiff is working with the defendant from 07.12.2010 till 26.06.2012 as a technical consultant on the monthly salary of Rs.37,500/-. Plaintiff has been relieved on submitting 6 S.C. No.294/2013 SCCH-22 her resignation on 26.06.2012 and the salary upto 26.06.2012 for the month of June has not been paid.
9. The defendant in the written statement as well as his evidence has clearly taken specific contention and defence that plaintiff has violated the terms and conditions of contract of employment and she has not followed the required formalities and procedures before relieving herself from her post. Even defendant was ready and now also ready to clear the arrears of salary only if the plaintiff comes forward to clear all the formalities as stated in the written statement and evidence of the defendant.
10. In this background, on perusal of the oral and document evidence of both sides it reveals that there is no dispute about the document at Ex.P.1 to P.4 produced by the plaintiff. Plaintiff in the chief examination has stated that contents of plaint. In her cross examination she has specifically admitted that one Vivek Kumar recommended her for the said job. She has denied the suggestion about 7 S.C. No.294/2013 SCCH-22 the defence of the defendant for she has not returned all the keys, documents, passwords in her possession. The Ex.D.1 was confronted which is terms and conditions of employment and Ex.D.2 regarding e-mail address of plaintiff. Further she admits that defendant initiated criminal case against her and also one Vivek Kumar. She further admits that as per Ex.P.3, apart from the salary there are various amounts are also credited to her account. But, it is not from the defendant company. On perusal of Ex.P.1 and P.2 appointment letter by the defendant to the plaintiff, it is not in dispute. Ex.P.3 - Bank statement and Ex.P.4 - Salary vouchers are also not disputed.
11. It is material to note that as per Ex.D.1 terms of employment, it has been clearly stated in condition No.18 regarding confidentiality and No.19 regarding delivering up of documents on resignation or relieving. The defendant has taken specific contention about the violation of terms of contract as it has been stated in above para 18 and 19 in Ex.D1. There are no materials placed to show that she has 8 S.C. No.294/2013 SCCH-22 complied with all terms and conditions and formalities and handing over the keys, documents, data etc. In the Ex.D.2 her letter of resignation there is no mention about that.
12. It is also important factor to note that defendant company MD has been examined as DW-1 and has specifically deposed about the contents of WS and the contention taken therein and produced Ex.D.3 to D.6 which reveals that as per Ex.P.3 defendant has paid the contribution to the EPF in the year 2011-12 and Ex.D.4 to 6 is the salary certificate form 16 of the IT Act for the year upto 2012. After the evidence of defendant, plaintiff and her counsel never appeared and not at all cross examined the DW-1 even after granting several opportunities. Twice, the cross examination was taken as nil and again it was reopened and DW-1 was recalled for 3rd time. But for all the times plaintiff and counsel never cross examined DW-1. Hence, the evidence of DW-1 remained unchallenged and all the defences and contentions taken by the defendant are to be taken as true and correct. In the initial stage plaintiff 9 S.C. No.294/2013 SCCH-22 totally failed to prove her case by adducing cogent evidence as discussed at above. Again the plaintiff also not cross examined DW-1. On all these grounds plaintiff totally failed to prove her case and defendant proved his defence and Hence, I answer these points accordingly.
13. Point No.3:-
In view of the discussions at above point Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff is not entitled for any reliefs. Hence, I answer this point in the Negative.
14. Point No.4:- In view of discussion of Point No. 1 to 3, I pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Draw a decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced in the Open court by me on this the 21st day of September, 2015.) (N.SUBRAMANYA) Member MACT & XX ASCJ., Bangalore.10 S.C. No.294/2013
SCCH-22 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for plaintiff PW1 Ms. Raina Kumari List of exhibits marked on behalf of plaintiff Ex.P1: Offer letter Ex.P2: Relieving letter Ex.P3: HDFC bank statement of account Ex.P4: 18 Pay slips Ex.P5: Copy of the legal notice Ex.P5 (a): Postal receipt Ex.P6: Postal acknowledgement List of witnesses examined for defendant DW1 Mr. Ranjit Paul List of exhibits marked on behalf of defendant Ex.D1 Terms and conditions of employment Ex.D1 (a) Signature of the plaintiff Ex.D2 Email of plaintiff Ex.D3 PF payment receipt Ex.D4 Form No.16 for year 2011-12 Ex.D5 Form No.16 for year 2011-12 Ex.D6 Form No.16 for year 2012-13 Member MACT & XX ASCJ, Bangalore.