Bangalore District Court
Wipro Enterprises (P) Ltd vs Karthik Radhakrishnan on 22 July, 2025
1
O.S. No.6912/2018
KABC010262982018
C.R.P.67
Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE
(C.C.H. No.17)
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF JULY 2025
Sri. Padma Prasad, B.A.(Law).,LL.B.
II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
O.S.No.6912/2018
Plaintiff: WIPRO ENTERPRISES (P) LTD
(A demerged entity of Wipro Limited)
A Company under the Companies
Act 1956
Having its registered office at
# C Block, CCLG Division,
Doddakannelli, Sarjapur Road
Bengaluru - 560 035.
Represented by Mr. Binu G. John
Gneral Manager - Human Resources
(By Sri KDN, Advocate)
2
O.S. No.6912/2018
Vs.
Defendant:- Mr. Karthik Radhakrishnan
S/o Mr. V. Radhakrishnan
Aged about 35 years
R/at No.25-C, Chinnammal Street
I.B. Apartments, K.K. Pudur
Coimbatore-641 038.
(Sri. NA, Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit : 20.09.2018
Nature of the suit (suit on : For Recovery of money
and possession, suit for
injunction etc,)
Date of the commencement : 05.02.2020
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 22.07.2025
was pronounced
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration : 06 10 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Padma Prasad)
II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
& Special Judge, Bangalore.
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the amount for breach of "Wipro Enterprises Reward Program 3 O.S. No.6912/2018 (WERP) and agreement" (hereinafter referred as agreement) dated 01.10.206 by the defendant along with other reliefs.
.2. The plaint case in nutshell is that plaintiff is a company under the Companies Act represented by its General Manager-Human Resources, wherein, it is claimed that the plaintiff engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of trade and commercial lighting products, fast moving consumer goods etc., through its Consumer Care and Lighting Division. The plaintiff over the years has introduced smart lighting products and enjoys considerable share in the market in the said field. The defendant was an employee as "Senior Design Executive - LSG" with the plaintiff in the year 2006. The plaintiff has promoted the defendant to the Group Manager - Lighting Solution as per letter dated 29.08.2016 and also given substantial increase in the salary and other benefits to the defendant periodically during annual salary and performance reviews. The defendant was in charge of the C & I Lighting business of the plaintiff as "Group Manager - Lighting Solutions". The defendant was in charge of engagement and technical support for commercial and Institutional Lighting Products in large markets including 4 O.S. No.6912/2018 Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru, Chennai and Hyderabad. The entire sales team of the plaintiff in the above markets were dependent on the defendant for Lighting Solutions and technical support. The defendant was working closely with the Research and Development team of the plaintiff and had in depth knowledge of all products and proposed product launches of the plaintiff etc. In the course of business, the defendant has proprietary and confidential data / materials that includes trade secrets and he had full data base of various projects where the plaintiff submitted designs, proposals and technical submission to pertinent Authorities from time to time. The activities and in particular the work of the defendant are of such specific and confidential nature that the plaintiff executes on agreement with specific clauses such as non-disclosure, confidentiality, non-compete and non- solicit. The defendant and the plaintiff entered into an agreement titled "Wipro Enterprises Reward Program (WERP) and agreement dated 01.10.2016. As per the said agreement, the defendant was granted a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- over a specified period. The payout of such grant beginning from 01.10.2018. Accordingly, the defendant agreed to comply 5 O.S. No.6912/2018 with the non-disclosure and confidentiality, non-compete and non-solicit and conflict of interest policy and not to divulge or share such information except as may be required by law. The said agreement have effected during the course of employment and for a period of 18 months after the termination of defendant's employment. It is further claimed by the plaintiff that the defendant undertook that in the event of breach or violation of the non solicitation / obligation mentioned in Clause 2(c) of the agreement, the defendant would be liable to pay the plaintiff an amount equivalent to last 12 months salary received by him. The plaintiff further claims that the defendant terminated his contract of employment with the plaintiff and left the service of plaintiff with effect from 31.05.2017. The defendant thereafter joined "Soril Infra Resources Limited" of Maharastra, which is also a Company engaged in the identical business of electrical and lighting products and is as such a competitor of the plaintiff. The nature / application of the lighting products and the target customer base is similar to that of the plaintiff's company. The defendant after resigning the service at the plaintiff and after joining the aforesaid company started 6 O.S. No.6912/2018 acting prejudicial to the interests of the plaintiff and actions of the defendant are in clear violation of the agreed terms of the WERP and agreement entered between them. The plaintiff further claims that the defendant after his resignation to the plaintiff company, solicited and lured the employees of the plaintiff namely Shubhajit Das, Rajesh Mukesh, Boobalan Vasudevan, Srinivasan R and Ankit Yada. Thereafter, they joined the company of defendant and they are acting against the plaintiff company in violation of the aforesaid agreement. The act of the defendant is clear violation or breach of terms of the agreement entered between them. The defendant was paid total salary of Rs. 12,40,670/- during the last 12 months of his working with the plaintiff i.e., from 01.06.2016 to 31.05.2017. As per the terms of the aforesaid agreement, the defendant is liable to repay the aforesaid amount, which is one year salary for breach of agreement dated 01.10.2016 and also prayed to decree the suit with costs.
.3. The defendant in the written statement admitted that he was an employee under the plaintiff as claimed in the plaint till his resignation. The defendant in the written statement totally denied the plaint case and claimed that suit 7 O.S. No.6912/2018 is not maintainable either in law or on facts with claim that the company wherein the defendant is working is not a competitor of the plaintiff as defined in the WERP and agreement. Accordingly claimed that breach of contract and payment of damages does not arise. The defendant also disputed the cause of action for the suit. The defendant disputed the payment of Rs. 12,40,670/- during the last 12 months as claimed in the plaint. The defendant also disputed about soliciting of any of the employees claimed in para No. 14 and 15 of the plaint. Further it is stated that there are many companies having similarly looking products and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the suit.
.4. On the basis of the above pleadings of both parties, the following issues have been framed by this court:
ISSUES
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant terminated his contract of Employment and left the services from 31.05.2017 and thereafter joined "Soril Infra Resources Limited" of Maharashtra?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that they paid a total salary of 8 O.S. No.6912/2018 Rs.12,40,670/- to the defendant for the period from 01.06.2016 to 31.05.2017?
3) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has violated the terms of Wipro Enterprises Reward Program (WERP) and agreement dated 01.10.2016?
4) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is liable to pay a amount of Rs.12,40,670/- for breach of Wipro Enterprises Reward Program (WERP) and agreement dated 01.10.2016?
5) What order or decree?
.5. In order to prove the plaint case, the the Group Human Resource Manager of the plaintiff Mr. Binu John has been examined as PW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to 12. The defendant has been examined as DW.1 and not got the documents.
.6. Heard the arguments and perused the materials on record, on that basis My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative Issue No.2 : In the affirmative Issue No.3 : In the Negative Issue No.4 : In the negative 9 O.S. No.6912/2018 Issue No.5 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS .7. Issue No.1 & 2: The issue No.1 is framed on the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant terminated his contract of employment and left the service from 31.05.2017 and thereafter joined "Soril Infra Resources Limited" of Maharashtra and issue No.2 is framed on the contention of the plaintiff that the total salary paid to the defendant was Rs.12,40,670/- for the period from 01.06.2016 to 31.05.2017. Hence, these issues are taken up together in order to avoid repetitions.
.8. The specific case of the plaintiff in the plaint is that the defendant joined the service of plaintiff company as "Senior Design Executive - LSG" in the year 2006 and the plaintiff promoted the defendant as Group Manager - Lighting Solution as per letter dated 29.08.2016 and he has been paid total salary of Rs. 12,40,670/- for the period of one year from 01.06.2016 to 31.05.2017. The plaintiff in support of its case examined its Group Human Resource Manager Mr. Binu John as PW.1 by filing evidence affidavit. He has stated in- 10
O.S. No.6912/2018 consonance with the plaint case. PW.1 produced Power of Attorney at Ex.P.1, which discloses that the plaintiff properly authorized PW.1 to prosecute its case on its behalf and accordingly PW.1 prosecuting this case and giving evidence. Ex.P.2 is the joining report of defendant to the plaintiff company. Ex.P.4 is the salary particulars of the defendant for the period of June 2016 to May 2017 the said particulars not disputed in specific with specific figure of the amount received by the defendant during his course of employment with the plaintiff. Hence the said salary particulars at Ex.P.4 to be accepted as true and correct. All these documents are not in dispute. The relationship of the plaintiff and the defendant as employer and employee is not in dispute. The defendant also not disputed receiving of salary of Rs. 12,40,670/- for a period from June 2016 to May 2017 in specific as aforesaid. It is also undisputed fact that the defendant submitted his resignation and left the company of plaintiff after May 2017. The defendant in his written statement as well as in his evidence affidavit specifically admitted that he has been employee under "Soril Infra Resources Limited" after resigning the service at plaintiff. Therefore, all these facts are 11 O.S. No.6912/2018 undisputed and admitted facts. Hence, it has to be accepted that the plaintiff was employer of the defendant and the defendant terminated his contract of employment with the plaintiff and joined "Senior Design Executive - LSG". It is also true fact that the defendant has received total salary of Rs.12,40,670/- from 01.06.2016 to 31.05.2017. Accordingly these two issues are answered in the affirmative.
.9. Issue No.3 & 4: The issue No.3 is framed on the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant has violated the terms of agreement dated 01.10.2016 and issue No.4 is framed on the contention of the plaintiff that as per the agreement dated 01.10.2016 the defendant is liable to repay one year salary for breach of the terms of said agreement dated 01.10.2016. Accordingly the plaintiff claims refund of Rs. 12,40,670/- for breach of contract by the defendant as claimed in the plaint. Therefore, these two issues are inter- linked with each other, hence they are taken up together in order to avoid repetitions.
.10. As discussed in issues 1 and 2, it is an admitted and proved fact that the defendant joined the plaintiff's company in the year 2006 as "Senior Design Executive - LSG" 12
O.S. No.6912/2018 and he has been promoted as Group Manager - Lighting Solution" as per a letter dated 29.08.2016. The plaintiff and the defendant in their pleadings as well as during trial admitted the entering into an agreement dated 01.10.2016 as per Ex.P.3. Therefore, execution of agreement at Ex.P.3 dated 01.10.2016 is not in dispute. Hence, the terms of the said agreement is binding on the parties.
.11. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant has violated the terms of the said agreement after resignation to the plaintiff company by joining "Soril Infra Resources Limited". The claim of the plaintiff in the plaint is that as per Clause of the aforesaid agreement, there is condition of non-disclosure, confidentiality, non-compete and non-solicit and that has been breached by the defendant after joining the "Soril Infra Resources Limited". The plaintiff in the plaint nowhere specifically stated that how the defendant committed the breach of conditions such as non-disclosure, confidentiality, non-compete and non-solicit clauses of the agreement at Ex.P.3.
.12. The only definite and specific allegation apparent from the pleadings as well as evidence of plaintiff is that the 13 O.S. No.6912/2018 defendant has solicited and lured five of its employees and made them to join the "Soril Infra Resources Limited". Except these allegations, there is no definite averments which discloses that how this defendant committed the breach of non-disclosure, confidentiality, non-compete and non-solicit clauses of the Ex.P.3 agreement.
.13. The Ex.P.3 is the agreement entered between plaintiff and the defendant. As per the said agreement, there is clause/condition No.2 regarding non-solicitation and clause/condition No.3 is non-compete clause. The condition No.2(c) reads as under:
"On breach of the covenant aforesaid, Grantee shall be liable to pay to the Company an amount equivalent to last twelve months salary received by him".
On the basis of the this Clause/condition, the plaintiff claiming recovery of 12 months salary with claim that there was breach of agreement by the defendant. The condition No.3 speaks about non-compete. As per condition No.3, the defendant shall be liable to pay to the plaintiff company an amount equivalent to last 12 months salary received by him. 14
O.S. No.6912/2018 .14. The case made out by the plaintiff is that before the expiry of 12 months of his resignation/termination, the defendant solicited or lured its employees stated in para 13 of the plaint and thereby breached the aforesaid agreement as such the defendant is liable to repay the suit claim amount. Hence, it is for the plaintiff to prove that the employees stated in para No.13 of the plaint namely Shubhajit Das, Rajesh Mukesh, Boobalan Vasudevan, Srinivasan R and Ankit Yada have left the company of the plaintiff in view of solicitation made by the defendant. Except the oral say, there is nothing on record to show that the defendant has solicited or lured the aforesaid five employees to leave the job of the plaintiff company and to join the company in which the defendant has been employed. Merely because the aforesaid employees joined the "Soril Infra Resources Limited" in which defendant was working after his termination of service at Plaintiff without any cogent evidence as the plaintiff asking the defendant for the repayment of one year salary paid to him.
.15. Undisputedly the defendant submitted his resignation to the company of plaintiff and his resignation has been accepted by the plaintiff and after acceptance of 15 O.S. No.6912/2018 resignation, the defendant joined the "Soril Infra Resources Limited". It is relevant to note that the aforesaid "Soril Infra Resources Limited" is also known as Syska Limited as per the suggestion put to the DW.1 during his cross-examination at page No.6 in para No.3. Even according to the suggestion made to DW.1 that Syska Limited is functioning since 2012. If it were so, the company which has been joined by the defendant after his resignation to the plaintiff company was doing business similar to the products of the plaintiff company four years prior to resignation of the defendant to the plaintiff company. Therefore, the defendant has not started identical business of the plaintiff immediately after termination or resignation of his job with the plaintiff. The defendant joined the company that may be produced similar products of the plaintiff company or the company doing similar business. Normally if the person terminated from the service, certainly he will join similar company as it is natural tendency as well as easy to carryout the employment and that can not called as illegal or against terms of agreement. Therefore, absolutely there is no direct evidence before the Court to show that the defendant personally compete with the 16 O.S. No.6912/2018 plaintiff company, as such, merely because the defendant employed in "Soril Infra Resources Limited" and it cannot be said that the defendant has breached the confidential information of the plaintiff. It is relevant to note that the entire plaint averments as well as evidence affidavit nowhere discloses that what are the confidential information disclosed by the defendant to his new company and thereby effected the business of plaintiff. There is also no material on record to show that in view of the joining of defendant and other employees to "Soril Infra Resources Limited" caused reduction in the sales of plaintiff or effected any projects of the plaintiff.
.16. As discussed earlier the grievance of the plaintiff is that immediately after the defendant left the employment with the plaintiff other 5 employees also left the plaintiff company and joined the company in which the defendant joined as an employee. Certainly the plaintiff can not find fault with the defendant only because the staffs or employees of the plaintiff company left the job and joined the similar company or the company to which the defendant joined unless and until there is direct evidence to show that it is the defendant solicited or lured such employees. Infact there is 17 O.S. No.6912/2018 no material on record to show that there is any communication between defendant and 5 employees stated in the para No. 13 of the plaint in between joining of the defendant to "Soril Infra Resources Limited" and the resignation aforesaid employees to the plaintiff company. Even the plaintiff not chosen to examine any of the aforesaid employees to support its claim of solicitation and luring of them by this defendant. If at all there is any mail or other communication in between defendant and aforesaid 5 employees in between the defendant joining of "Soril Infra Resources Limited" and the resignation of aforesaid employees to the plaintiff company certainly that would have been accepted that the defendant lured or solicited them to resign the job. It is relevant to note that as per Ex.P.5 to 9, the employees stated in para No. 13 of the plaint voluntarily submitted their resignation to the plaintiff company. When such is the case, certainly claim of the plaintiff that the defendant has violated the terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreement dated 01.10.2016 can not be accepted. Apart from that it is not the case of the plaintiff that it has not accepted the resignation of the aforesaid 5 employees. It 18 O.S. No.6912/2018 is not the case of the plaintiff that after receipt of resignation letter they had talked with the aforesaid employees and they have informed the plaintiff that on the solicitation or luring of the defendant they decided to leave the plaintiff company with the intention of joining the "Soril Infra Resources Limited"
wherein the defendant was working. Absolutely there is no material on record to show that the defendant has violated the terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreement. In the absence of any such evidence to show the breach of any of the conditions set out in Ex.P.3 agreement, certainly the defendant cannot be directed to repay the 12 months salary received by him. Therefore for these reasons, this court is of the humble opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove the issue No.3 and 4, accordingly these issues are answered in the Negative.
.17. Issue No.5: In view of my findings on the above issues 1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. Considering the peculiar circumstance of the case no order as to cost.19
O.S. No.6912/2018 Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the S.G-I, transcribed by her, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 322nd day of July, 2025) (Padma Prasad) II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, & Spl. Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF :
P.W.1 :Binu John
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 Power of Attorney
Ex.P.2 Joining report of the defendant
Ex.P.3 WIPRO Enterprises reward program (WERP)
and agreement
Ex.P.4 Statement of salary particulars of defendants
issued on 03.09.2018
Ex.P.5 E-mail dated 02.07.2017
Ex.P.6 E-mail dated 06.09.2017
Ex.P.7 E-mail dated 05.08.2017
Ex.P.8 E-mail dated 07.07.2017
Ex.P.9 E-mail dated 03.07.2017
Ex.P.10 Certificate under Section 65(B) of Evidence Act
in respect of Ex.P.5 to 9
Ex.P.11 Copy of the letter dated 29.08.2016 issued by
plaintiff company to the defendant
Ex.P.12 Letter dated 31.05.2017 issued by plaintiff
20
O.S. No.6912/2018
company to the defendant for acceptance of resignation of defendant
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
DW.1 : Karthik Radhakrishnan
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
Nil (Padma Prasad) II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.