Delhi District Court
Mamta Choudhary vs Ekta Cosmetics Ltd And Anr on 26 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHU KHURANA, CIVIL JUDGE-01,
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided By: Mr. Yashu Khurana, DJS
Suit No. 43/2021
MAMTA CHOUDHARY
B-796, S. F. Green Fields
Colony, Faridabad Haryana.
.....Plaintiff
Vs.
EKTA COSMETICS LTD.
Having its office at:
B-6, Third Floor,
Kalkaji, New Delhi- 110019.
.....Defendant
Date of institution of Suit : 06.01.2021
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 10.07.2024
Date of pronouncement of the Judgment : 26.09.2024
JUDGMENT
Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit filed by the plaintiff seeking the following relief:-
"A. Pass a decree in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant for the recovery of Rs.38,739/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Nine Only);
B. Pass a decree in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant for providing Experience Letter.
C. Pass a decree of pendent-lite and future interest @ 18% p.a. in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant;
D. Pass a decree against defendant to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the compensation, legal expenses encored and damages for the mental harassment, financial burden caused to Plaintiff CS SCJ 43/21 MAMTA CHOUDHARY Vs. EKTA COSMETICS LTD AND ANR. Page no. 1 of 17 Digitally signed by yashu yashu khurana khurana Date:
2024.09.26 17:44:11 +0530 E Pass a decree in favor of the Plaintiff and against the defendant for returning the signed blank cheque of the Plaintiff.
F. Award costs of the litigation in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant; and G. Pass any other further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deed fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand."
Brief Facts as per the plaint:-
1.1 The plaintiff is a law-abiding citizen and a qualified professional from VLCC Institute with extensive experience in cosmetics sales. Defendant no. 1 is engaged in supplying and distribution of Cosmetics in India.
1.2 The plaintiff was appointed as a Techno Sales Executive on 08.08.2019, at a net salary of Rs.22,000/- per month. Plaintiff worked with defendant till September 30, 2020, however, defendant failed to pay the complete salary for September, 2020 to the plaintiff. Plaintiff's services were terminated via WhatsApp on 01.10.2020 without prior notice, and her official email was blocked and her number was removed from all the official whatsapp groups of defendant. Plaintiff on several occasions approached the defendant, and made several requests through e-mail to the defendants to release her salary for the month of September, 2020 along with other expenses and experience letter.
Plaintiff also issued a legal notice dated 14.10.2020, upon the defendants which was duly served and acknowledged by the defendants. Plaintiff claims that defendants have withheld a sum of Rs. 38,739/- from the plaintiff. In addition to this amount, plaintiff claims interest at 18% from October 2020, on the aforesaid amount. Plaintiff also seeks Rs. 50,000/-
CS SCJ 43/21 MAMTA CHOUDHARY Vs. EKTA COSMETICS LTD AND ANR. Page no. 2 of 17
Digitally
signed by
yashu
yashu khurana
khurana Date:
2024.09.26
17:44:19
+0530
for compensation/legal expenses and damages caused by way of mental harassment. Hence, the present suit.
Brief facts as per the written statement:-
2. Defendant was served on 13.09.2021. However, they chose not to contest the suit and were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29.11.2021. During the course of the proceedings, defendant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC, which was allowed, and the ex-parte order passed on 29.11.2021 was set aside.
3. Case of defendant in brief is that defendant is into the business of supply and distribution of cosmetic goods in India. On account of nationwide lockdown by Government of India due to the advent of Covid-19 pandemic in March, 2020 defendant company suffered huge losses and as a result thereof, defendant started disbursing salaries to its employees on proportionate basis till the situation improved. In terms of the same, from April, 2020 defendant company started releasing only 50% salaries to each to its employees. However, the minimum slab for the same was fixed at Rs.15,000/- and maximum at Rs.50,000/-. Pursuant thereto, respective regional manager/ head of departments informed their respective team members of this decision and gave them liberty to continue to stay/employed with the defendant company. It is on account of the afore-said development that plaintiff was also getting Rs.15,000/- as her salary from April, 2020 till termination. It is claimed that on 21.11.2020, defendant paid Rs.46,970/-
to plaintiff as full and final settlement of her dues. The computation of which is as under :-
CS SCJ 43/21 MAMTA CHOUDHARY Vs. EKTA COSMETICS LTD AND ANR. Page no. 3 of 17 Digitally signed by yashu yashu khurana khurana Date:
2024.09.26 17:44:25 +0530 PARTICULARS PERIOD AMOUNT Salary September, 2020 Rs. 15,000/-
(covid Period)
Salary October, 2020 Rs. 15,000/-
(Covid period)
Expenses reimbursement July, 2020 Rs. 4,673/-
Expenses reimbursement August, 2020 Rs. 5,770/-
Expenses reimbursement September, 2020 Rs. 7,107/-
Total Rs. 47,550/-
Less (demo kit deductions) (-) Rs. 580/-
Total Rs.46,970/-
Issues :-
4. In view of the aforementioned pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 19.12.2023:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 38,739/-
against the defendant as prayed for in prayer clause (A) of the plaint? OPP.
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree against the defendant for providing the experience letter as prayed for in prayer clause (B) of the plaint? OPP.
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of pendente-lite and future interest @ 18% per annum against the defendant as prayed for in prayer clause (C) of the plaint? OPP.
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards the compensation, legal expenses and damages for the mental harassment, financial burden caused to the plaintiff against the defendant as prayed for in prayer clause (D) of the plaint? OPP.
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree against the defendant for returning the signed blank cheque of the plaintiff as prayed for in prayer clause (E) of the plaint? OPP.
(6) Relief.
Plaintiff's evidence:-
CS SCJ 43/21 MAMTA CHOUDHARY Vs. EKTA COSMETICS LTD AND ANR. Page no. 4 of 17 Digitally signed by yashu yashu khurana khurana Date:
2024.09.26 17:44:31 +0530
5. Plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.PW1/2, wherein, she majorly reiterated the contents of her plaint. Hence, for the brevity of the decision, the same is not being reproduced. Plaintiff relied upon the following documents: -
SL Documents Exhibits
1 Copy of Appointment letter Ex.PW1/A1
2 Copy of termination message Ex.PW1/B
3 Emails chat to release the payment of Ex.PW1/C
plaintiff's salary due from September 2020 along with other expenses and experience letter 4 Legal notice Ex.PW1/D 5 Proof of service (postal receipts) Ex.PW1/E 6 Proof of delivery (tracking report) Ex.PW1/F
7. Certificate under section 65-B IEA Ex.PW1/G
6. During her cross-examination, PW1 Mamta Choudhary stated that she was employed by defendant no. 1 at the relevant time, and at the time of joining, her salary was Rs.22,000 per month, until the COVID-19 period. Thereafter, her salary was reduced to Rs.15,000 per month from April 2020. During the months of April and May, when the lockdown was in effect, she did not work, but physical work resumed in June. She acknowledged that all employees of the company were paid a reduced salary during the Covid period and that she was not aware of the salaries of other employees. She admitted that the minimum salary during this period was Rs.15,000, which was the lowest amount paid to any employee. She confirmed that until March 2020, she was paid Rs.22,000 per month, but from April to August 2020, she received Rs.15,000 per month, and that this reduction was due to the Covid-19 pandemic. She CS SCJ 43/21 MAMTA CHOUDHARY Vs. EKTA COSMETICS LTD AND ANR. Page no. 5 of 17 Digitally signed by yashu yashu khurana khurana Date:
2024.09.26 17:44:38 +0530 also admitted that she never raised any complaints regarding this salary reduction during the pandemic. She mentioned having spoken with her manager, Mr. Vikas Arora, and HR representative, Mrs. Taruna, about keeping her salary at Rs.22,000, but they informed her that all employees were being paid a reduced salary.
Defendant's evidence:-
7. Defendants examined Sh. Rajesh Kumar Singh as DW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.DW1/A and majorly reiterated the contents of written statement filed on behalf of the defendant no. 1 and 2 and relied upon the following documents:-
SL Documents Exhibits
1 Board Resolution dated 27.08.2022 Ex. DW1/1
2 Copy of expenses statement given by the Ex. DW1/2 (colly)
plaintiff to the defendant for release of (same is de-exhibited
payment and marked as
Mark B
3 Copy of bank statement of defendant Ex. DW1/3
company (colly) (same is de-
exhibited and marked
as
Mark A
8. During his cross-examination, DW1, inter-alia, stated that salary of plaintiff was Rs.22,000/-, however, he had not filed any documentary evidence regarding the complaints received against the plaintiff from her Regional Manager and colleagues. He stated that the KIT was never submitted by the plaintiff to the office of the defendant, but he admitted that the plaintiff must have submitted the KIT. He also noted that he did not remember whether the KIT was submitted by the plaintiff or not, as CS SCJ 43/21 MAMTA CHOUDHARY Vs. EKTA COSMETICS LTD AND ANR. Page no. 6 of 17 Digitally signed by yashu yashu khurana khurana Date:
2024.09.26 17:44:45 +0530 he would have to confirm this with HR. He admitted that they had not filed any documents related to salary deductions during the Covid period. Furthermore, he stated that the plaintiff had never asked for an experience letter from the defendant company. During her employment, the company accepted documents such as a copy of the PAN card, a copy of the Aadhaar card, and bank details. Cheques are submitted by the defendant company only for those employees to whom demo KITs are provided. He also admitted that they were served with the legal notice Ex.PW1/D and that they had not filed any reply to the plaintiff's legal notice. He stated that the entire payment had been made.
9. DE was closed on 06.05.2024 and thereafter, final arguments were heard on 10.07.2024 and clarifications were sought on 20.09.2024.
Final arguments:-
10. During final arguments Ld. counsel for the plaintiff reiterated the contents of the plaint and submitted that plaintiff has duly proved by way of evidence and documents annexed with the plaint that she is entitled to recover Rs. 38,739/- from the defendant, along with the experience letter and the blank cheque given by her to the defendant company. He submitted that plaintiff is also entitled to claim damages from the defendant as she had been wrongfully terminated via whatsapp, without any notice period.
11. Per contra, Ld. counsel for the defendant reiterated the contents of his written statement and submitted that, plaintiff has failed to prove the basis on which she claims arrears from the defendant. He CS SCJ 43/21 MAMTA CHOUDHARY Vs. EKTA COSMETICS LTD AND ANR. Page no. 7 of 17 Digitally signed by yashu yashu khurana khurana Date:
2024.09.26 17:44:52 +0530 further submitted that, since plaintiff has not challenged her termination by way of the present suit, she cannot claim damages on the ground of wrongful termination.
Brief analysis of dispute between the parties:-
12. Before delving into findings and analysis on the issues framed in the present suit, it is pertinent to summarize the dispute between the parties.
13. Plaintiff claims that she was wrongfully terminated without any notice period, and that she has not been paid salary for the month of September and the notice period. She claims that pursuant to her wrongful termination she had sent legal notices and emails to the defendant to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 96,708/-. The bifurcation of the aforesaid amount, traced from Ex. PW 1/D i.e. the legal notice dated 14.10.2020, is as under: -
Particulars Amount
Salary for the month of September, 2020 Rs. 22,000/-
Salary for the period of two months' notice period Rs. 44,000/-
Travel allowance for the month of June & July, 2020. Rs. 7,038/-
Travel allowance for the month of August, 2020. Rs. 5,814/- Travel allowance for the month of August, 2020. Rs. 6,857/- Expenses of the legal notice. Rs. 11,000/-
TOTAL Rs. 96,708/-
CS SCJ 43/21 MAMTA CHOUDHARY Vs. EKTA COSMETICS LTD AND ANR. Page no. 8 of 17
Digitally
signed by
yashu
yashu khurana
khurana Date:
2024.09.26
17:44:59
+0530
14. In furtherance of the legal notices and emails, defendant paid Rs. 46,970/- to the plaintiff, as full and final settlement amount. However, plaintiff claims that an amount of Rs. 38,739/- is still outstanding.
Issue wise findings and analysis:-
Issue no. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 38,739/- against the defendant as prayed for in prayer clause (A) of the plaint? OPP
15. The long and short of the issue at hand is that defendant have arrived at the full and final settlement amount by calculating plaintiffs' outstanding salary @ Rs. 15,000/- per month, whereas plaintiff claims outstanding salary @ Rs. 22,000/-. Defendant have also paid salary for one additional month, whereas plaintiff claims salary for two months' notice period. Therefore, to decide the issue at hand it is pertinent to decide firstly, whether, plaintiff was entitled to be paid salary @ Rs. 22,000/- per month or Rs. 15,000/- per month for September 2020 and for two months' notice period; secondly, whether plaintiff has been wrongly terminated without two months' notice period and is plaintiff entitled to salary for the said period.
16. To prove her claim w.r.t. the first sub-issue, plaintiff has relied upon Ex. PW 1/A1 i.e. her appointment letter, to contend that she started working for the defendant company in August, 2019 at a net salary of Rs. 2,64,000/- per annum, i.e. Rs. 22,000/- per month. She also CS SCJ 43/21 MAMTA CHOUDHARY Vs. EKTA COSMETICS LTD AND ANR. Page no. 9 of 17 Digitally signed by yashu yashu khurana khurana Date:
2024.09.26 17:45:05 +0530 placed reliance on cross-examination of DW-1 wherein he has admitted that plaintiff's salary was Rs. 22,000/- per month.
17. Per Contra, defendant has relied upon copy Mark A that is copy of the bank statement of defendant company from 7th of January 2020 till 23rd November 2020, to illustrate that from May, 2020 plaintiff was being paid a reduced salary of Rs. 15,000/- due to onset of Covid-19 pandemic and enforcement of a nationwide lockdown. He also relied upon cross-examination of plaintiff, wherein Plaintiff has admitted that from April, 2020 till August 2020, she was being paid salary @ 15,000/- per month, on account of Covid-19 pandemic. He also highlighted that plaintiff in her cross-examination has stated that her Manager and the HR of defendant had refused her request for being paid a salary of Rs. 22,000/- per month, as all the employees of the company were being paid a lesser salary.
18. Defendant have admitted Ex. PW 1/A1 i.e. the appointment letter, in the affidavit of admission and denial of plaintiffs' document, hence, no further proof is required w.r.t the fact that Plaintiff was appointed at a net monthly salary of Rs. 22,000/- per month. During cross-examination plaintiff has made a categorical admission that pursuant to onset of Covid -19 lockdown, she was being paid a salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month from April 2020 till August 2020. A careful perusal of plaintiffs' cross-examination reveals that she had acquiesced to the reduced salary of Rs. 15,000/- being paid to her by the defendant from April 2020 onwards. Therefore plaintiff is barred by law of estoppel from now claiming salary @ Rs. 22,000/- per month. In this regard it is CS SCJ 43/21 MAMTA CHOUDHARY Vs. EKTA COSMETICS LTD AND ANR. Page no. 10 of 17 Digitally signed by yashu yashu khurana khurana Date:
2024.09.26 17:45:11 +0530 pertinent to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Chandra Praksh Tiwari v. Shakuntla Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127, wherein it was inter alia observed that, estoppel by conduct applies to events where there is a precise and unambiguous representation . It is also pertinent to highlight that plaintiff, did not agitate or dispute receipt of salary at reduced rates in Ex.PW1/D i.e. the legal notice dated 14.10.2020 sent to defendant. Therefore, considering plaintiff's admission and acquiescence regarding reduced salary being paid to her from April 2020 onwards, this court finds that plaintiff is not entitled to receive salary @ Rs. 22,000/- for the month of September 2020 or two months' notice period.
19. To adjudicate the second sub-issue reference may be drawn to clause no. 8 and 9 of Ex. PW 1/A1, i.e. plaintiffs' appointment letter, which reads as under: -
" 8.Notice Period:- You will be bound to give 30 days notice or pay in lieu of notice period in case you decide to leave the services of the company. The company can accept your resignation decide without notice period.
9. Termination/Retirement:-The company reserves the right to terminate you any time during your employment in violation of the above clauses without giving any prior notice. You will automatically retire on attaining the age of 60 years."
20. Plaintiff has claimed entitlement to two months' notice period based on clause no. 8 (supra). Whereas defendant have placed reliance on clause 9 (supra).
21. As per clause 9 (supra), defendant had the right to terminate plaintiff from their employment at any time without giving any prior CS SCJ 43/21 MAMTA CHOUDHARY Vs. EKTA COSMETICS LTD AND ANR. Page no. 11 of 17 Digitally signed by yashu yashu khurana khurana Date:
2024.09.26 17:45:18 +0530 notice, notwithstanding other terms and conditions of employment, including clause 8(supra) of the appointment letter. Moreover, on a bare perusal of clause 8(supra), it is apparent that it applies to a case, where plaintiff decides to leave the service of defendant and not in case of her termination from employment. Therefore, considering the foregoing observations, it is held that, plaintiff was not wrongfully terminated and was not entitled to receive notice period of two months post intimation of her termination.
22. Coming back to the issue at hand, defendant has pleaded that outstanding salary (calculated @ 15,000/- p.m.) for September, 2020 and October, 2020 has already been paid to plaintiff along with expenses incurred by plaintiff during her employment, by way of full and final settlement amount of Rs. 46,970/-. The bifurcation of which is as under:-
PARTICULARS PERIOD AMOUNT
Salary September, 2020 Rs. 15,000/-
(covid Period)
Salary October, 2020 Rs. 15,000/-
(Covid period)
Expenses reimbursement July, 2020 Rs. 4,673/-
Expenses reimbursement August, 2020 Rs. 5,770/-
Expenses reimbursement September, 2020 Rs. 7,107/-
Total Rs. 47,550/-
Less (demo kit deductions) (-) Rs. 580/-
Total Rs.46,970/-
23. It is apparent that by way of the full and final settlement amount paid by the defendant, they have already cleared all the outstanding amount towards salary and other expenses payable by them to the plaintiff. Over and above this outstanding amount, defendant has CS SCJ 43/21 MAMTA CHOUDHARY Vs. EKTA COSMETICS LTD AND ANR. Page no. 12 of 17 Digitally signed by yashu yashu khurana khurana Date:
2024.09.26 17:45:24 +0530 also paid plaintiff, salary for October, 2020. Hence, issue no. 1 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant. Accordingly, it held that plaintiff is not entitled to recover Rs. 38,739/- from the defendant.
Issue no. 3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of pendente-lite and future interest @ 18% per annum against the defendant as prayed for in prayer clause (C) of the plaint? OPP.
24. Since, issue no. 1 has been decided against the plaintiff and it has been held that she is not entitled to recover Rs. 38,739/- from the defendant, the relief claimed by way of prayer clause (C) of the plaint does not survive. Hence, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. Accordingly, it is held that plaintiff is not entitled to pendente-lite and future interest @ 18% per annum from the defendant.
Issue no. 4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards the compensation, legal expenses and damages for the mental harassment, financial burden caused to the plaintiff against the defendant as prayed for in prayer clause (D) of the plaint? OPP.
25. Plaintiff has raised the aforesaid claim on account of her wrongful termination and non-payment of outstanding salary by the defendant. Since, issue no. 1 has been decided against the plaintiff and it has been observed that she is not entitled to recover Rs. 38,739/- from the defendant and that she was not wrongfully terminated by defendant, hence, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the CS SCJ 43/21 MAMTA CHOUDHARY Vs. EKTA COSMETICS LTD AND ANR. Page no. 13 of 17 Digitally signed by yashu yashu khurana khurana Date:
2024.09.26 17:45:30 +0530 defendant. Accordingly, it is held that plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards the compensation, legal expenses and damages for the mental harassment, financial burden caused to the plaintiff against the defendant.
Issue no. 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree against the defendant for providing the experience letter as prayed for in prayer clause (B) of the plaint? OPP.
26. In order to discharge the burden of proving this issue, plaintiff relied upon the cross-examination of DW-1, wherein DW-1 deposed that plaintiff had never asked for the experience letter from defendant. Thereafter, she placed reliance on Ex. PW 1/D i.e. legal notice dated 14.10.2020, sent by her to the defendant, which has been admitted by DW-1 during his cross examination. As per the legal notice, plaintiff has categorically mentioned that defendant should issue her an experience letter for the period of her employment with the defendant company. It is also pertinent to refer to cross-examination of PW-1, wherein she has denied defendants' suggestion that she was not issued the experience letter because she did not visit the defendant company after her termination. She further deposed that post her termination, she had visited the company and had also requested a meeting with the Managing Director of defendant company. However, her request was denied. In light of the foregoing observations, it is held that plaintiff had requested for issuance of experience letter to her and defendant failed to issue her an experience letter. Therefore, plaintiff has discharged the onus of proving the issue at hand. Hence, issue no. 2 is decided in favour CS SCJ 43/21 MAMTA CHOUDHARY Vs. EKTA COSMETICS LTD AND ANR. Page no. 14 of 17 Digitally signed by yashu yashu khurana khurana Date:
2024.09.26 17:45:37 +0530 of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Accordingly, defendant is directed to issue plaintiff an experience letter for the tenure of her employment with the defendant company.
Issue no. 5: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree against the defendant for returning the signed blank cheque of the plaintiff as prayed for in prayer clause (E) of the plaint? OPP.
27. In order to discharge the burden of proving this issue, plaintiff relied upon the cross-examination of DW-1, wherein he admitted that cheques are submitted with the defendant company only by those employees to whom demo KIT are provided. DW-1 further deposed that he cannot confirm if the plaintiffs' signed cheque was returned to her or not, and HR of defendant company has information regarding the same. It is also pertinent to refer to cross-examination of PW-1 wherein she affirmed that she had submitted a blank cheque with defendant company, at the time of her joining.
28. As per defendants' written statement they had deducted an amount of Rs. 580/- towards demo kit, in the full and final settlement amount paid to the plaintiff. Therefore, considering the pleadings of defendant and the evidence adduced during cross-examination of PW-1 and DW-1, it is apparent that plaintiff had deposited a blank signed cheque to the defendant at the time of her joining. Therefore, issue no. 5 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Accordingly, defendant is directed to handover to the plaintiff, the blank-
CS SCJ 43/21 MAMTA CHOUDHARY Vs. EKTA COSMETICS LTD AND ANR. Page no. 15 of 17 Digitally signed by yashu yashu khurana khurana Date:
2024.09.26 17:45:44 +0530 signed cheque deposited by her at the time of her joining the defendant company.
Relief:-
29. In view of the aforesaid findings, plaintiff has failed to discharged the burden of proving issue no. 1, 3 and 4 against the defendant and has successfully discharged the burden of proving proved issue no. 2 and 5 against the defendant. The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed in the following terms:-
1. This court finds that plaintiff is not entitled to receive salary @ Rs.
22,000/- for the month of September 2020 or two months' notice period. Plaintiff was not wrongfully terminated and was not entitled to receive notice period of two months post intimation of her termination. Accordingly, it is held that plaintiff is not entitled to pendente-lite and future interest @ 18% per annum from the defendant.
2. It is held that plaintiff is not entitled to pendente-lite and future interest @ 18% per annum from the defendant.
3. Plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-
towards the compensation, legal expenses and damages for the mental harassment, financial burden caused to the plaintiff against the defendant.
4. Defendant is directed to issue plaintiff an experience letter for the tenure of her employment with the defendant company.
CS SCJ 43/21 MAMTA CHOUDHARY Vs. EKTA COSMETICS LTD AND ANR. Page no. 16 of 17 Digitally signed by yashu yashu khurana khurana Date:
2024.09.26 17:45:51 +0530
5. Defendant is directed to handover to the plaintiff, the blank-signed cheque deposited by her at the time of her joining the defendant company.
30. No order as to costs.
31. After preparation of the decree sheet by the Reader, the file shall be consigned to the record room.
Digitally
signed by
yashu
yashu khurana
khurana Date:
Pronounced in the open 2024.09.26
17:45:56
Court on 26th September, 2024
+0530
(Yashu Khurana)
Civil Judge-01, South-East,
Saket Courts, New Delhi
CS SCJ 43/21 MAMTA CHOUDHARY Vs. EKTA COSMETICS LTD AND ANR. Page no. 17 of 17