Delhi District Court
Mohan Singh Bisht vs Ms Hbl Nife Power System Ltd on 22 November, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIKAS GARG, DISTRICT
JUDGE-05 (EAST DISTRICT),
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
CS No. 116/2016
CNR No. DLET01-000093-2012
Mohan Singh
S/o Late Sh. Bhopal Singh
Flat No. 39-D, Pocket-BG-3
Paschim Vihar
New Delhi-110063 .........Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s. HBL Nife Power System Ltd.
Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
House No. 8-2-601, Road No. 10, Plot No. 263,
Banjara Hills
Hyderabad
2. Sri G.M. Rao
Manager (Admn./HR)
M/s. HBL Nife Power System Ltd.
Plot no. 263, Patparganj Industrial Area
Delhi-110092
3. Sri Avinash Arora
Zonal Head (North Zone)
M/s. HBL Nife Power System Ltd.
Plot no. 263, Patparganj Industrial Area
Delhi-110092 ...........Defendants
Digitally signed
VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG
GARG 2024.11.22
14:21:31 +0530
CS No. 116/16 Mohan Singh Bisht Vs. M/s HBL Nife Power System Ltd. Page no. 1 of 28
Date of Institution : 21.12.2012
Date of Final Arguments : 11.11.2024
Date of Decision : 22.11.2024
Final Decision : Suit Dismissed
SUIT FOR DAMAGES AND CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, the court will adjudicate the suit filed by the plaintiff for damages and consequential relief.
The plaintiff's case, as outlined in the plaint, is summarized below, highlighting only the essential facts and averments necessary for adjudication:-
2. The plaintiff was initially appointed as a contractual employee of defendant no. 1 through an offer letter dated 15.10.2003 and was posted at the Zone Office, Patparganj, Delhi. He was subsequently promoted to Level-II by letter dated 22.06.2005. From 03.08.2011, the plaintiff was not permitted to mark his attendance, and the attendance register was unavailable on 05.08.2011. His salary for July 2011 was delayed, with defendant nos. 2 and 3 attributing the delay to business losses. His last drawn salary was approximately ₹27,000/-. Additionally, he was not assigned any work from 03.08.2011, and his official email and mobile number were blocked, compelling him to provide alternative contact details. Following an email from the defendant company on VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG 14:21:44 +0530 Date: 2024.11.22 CS No. 116/16 Mohan Singh Bisht Vs. M/s HBL Nife Power System Ltd. Page no. 2 of 28 19.08.2011, he returned his company-provided laptop and data card. Although he was directed to meet the company's manager, Sh. G.M. Rao, on 26.08.2011, the meeting yielded no resolution.
The plaintiff subsequently issued a legal notice, to which the defendants responded. He alleges that the defendants illegally and unilaterally pressured him to resign by creating monetary hardship, an act he considers arbitrary and unlawful. The plaintiff claims damages amounting to ₹5,36,000/- for unpaid salary from July 2011 to November 2012, annual bonus for 2011-12, and compensation for mental agony, humiliation, and financial hardship. He also seeks a declaration that the defendants' actions were illegal, damages with 24% annual interest, litigation costs, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
The case of the defendants, as outlined in the written statement (WS), is summarized as follows, focusing solely on the essential facts and averments necessary for adjudication:-
3. The defendants have raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the suit, asserting that defendant no. 1 ceased to exist as of 20.10.2006, rendering the suit false, frivolous, and misconceived. They further contend that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction as clause 18 of the VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.11.22 14:21:54 +0530 CS No. 116/16 Mohan Singh Bisht Vs. M/s HBL Nife Power System Ltd. Page no. 3 of 28 plaintiff's appointment letter confers jurisdiction exclusively on courts at Hyderabad/Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh. It is argued that no cause of action exists in favor of the plaintiff, and the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties, as defendant nos. 2 and 3, being mere employees of defendant no. 1, are neither necessary nor proper parties. Additionally, the defendants allege that no proper court fee has been paid, making the suit liable for dismissal.
On merits, the defendants argue that the plaintiff, as a contractual employee under the agreement dated 15.10.2003, had no enforceable rights after the contract expired on 27.08.2004, and no new agreement was entered thereafter. The defendants claim that the plaintiff voluntarily stopped reporting for work after July 2011, and his continuation was not permissible after the lapse of the contractual term. Furthermore, defendant no. 1 asserts it was within its rights under the original contract to terminate the plaintiff's services without notice or reason. The defendants have prayed for the dismissal of the suit with heavy costs.
Replication:-
4. The plaintiff filed a replication, refuting the assertions made in the written statement and reaffirming the claims presented in the plaint. Digitally signed VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2024.11.22 14:22:01 +0530 CS No. 116/16 Mohan Singh Bisht Vs. M/s HBL Nife Power System Ltd. Page no. 4 of 28 Issues:-
5. Upon the completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial on 19.02.2015:
"1. Whether the plaintiff was deliberately kept out of employment illegally by not permitting him to join his duties since July 2011? (OPP)
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the damages, as prayed for, if so, at what rate? (OPP)
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest of the damages claimed, if so, at what rate? (OPP)
4. Whether the plaintiff had left is job of his own? (OPD)
5. Whether this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try this suit? (OPD)
6. Relief."
No other issues were raised or pressed during that time.
Plaintiff's Evidence:-
6. Sh. Robin Fernandes testified as PW-1 and tendered his affidavit, Ex. PW-1/1, in his examination-in-chief, wherein he stated that he furnished the service report of the email ID of Mohan Bisht along with a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. He presented the following documents: Digitally signed VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2024.11.22 14:22:11 +0530 CS No. 116/16 Mohan Singh Bisht Vs. M/s HBL Nife Power System Ltd. Page no. 5 of 28 "1. Original resolution dated 23.06.2014 passed by Boards of Director in his favour as Ex. PW-1/A.
2. In connection to the said resolution, authority letter is also issued in his favour on the letter head of Yahoo as Ex. PW-1/A1.
3. Original compact disc as Ex. PW-1/B."
PW-1 underwent an extensive cross-examination by the counsel for the defendant.
The plaintiff examined Sh. Sumit Kumar as PW-2, who presented the authority letter dated 28.05.2015 as Ex. PW-2/A. He authenticated the statement of the account from 01.04.2011 to 28.07.2012 for savings bank account No. 015010100124546, standing in the name of Mohan Singh Bisht, as Ex. PW-2/B. PW-2 was then cross-examined by the counsel for the defendants.
Sh. Govind Singh Mehra was examined as PW-3 and submitted his affidavit marked as Ex. PW-3/A during his examination-in-chief. PW-3, Shri Govind Singh Mehra, in his evidentiary affidavit, stated that he was employed with the defendant company as a Sales Coordinator and was based at its R.K. Puram, New Delhi office. He witnessed the VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.11.22 14:22:23 +0530 CS No. 116/16 Mohan Singh Bisht Vs. M/s HBL Nife Power System Ltd. Page no. 6 of 28 plaintiff visiting the R.K. Puram office on several occasions. On 09.08.2011, at around 10 or 11 a.m., he observed Mr. G.M. Rao, a manager in the defendant company, shouting at the plaintiff in a high-pitched voice, questioning him for sending emails. Mr. Rao then instructed Mr. Kamal and other pantry staff to snatch the plaintiff's laptop and even attempted to do so himself, but the situation was de- escalated by the intervention of other employees present at the time. On 26.11.2011, at approximately 1 or 2 p.m., PW-3 saw the plaintiff meeting Mr. Rao in the office, where Mr. Rao angrily threatened to throw the plaintiff out of the company if he did not resign. The plaintiff, in response, requested work assignments and his unpaid salary. On the same day, PW-3 also observed Mr. Amit Bisht, the company's Maintenance Executive (IT) posted in Jaipur, meeting Mr. Rao and Mr. Avanish Arora. Mr. Amit Bisht was similarly not paid his salary and was not assigned any duties. PW-3 noted that the defendant company frequently adopted such practices to coerce employees into resigning by withholding salaries and denying work assignments, causing frustration. Mr. Amit Bisht settled his account with the company on 26.11.2011. PW-3 further stated that the plaintiff, along with other employees like Vipin Joshi, Abhijeet Bandhopadhyay, Mohan Kumar, and Bhagwat Singh, faced similar treatment, with salaries withheld and VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.11.22 14:22:34 +0530 CS No. 116/16 Mohan Singh Bisht Vs. M/s HBL Nife Power System Ltd. Page no. 7 of 28 pressure exerted to resign.
PW-3 was thoroughly cross-examined by the counsel for the defendants.
Shri Sumeet Joshi was examined as PW-4 and submitted his affidavit marked as Ex. PW-4/A during his examination-in- chief.
Shri Sumeet Joshi, who testified as PW-4, stated in his evidential affidavit that he had been working with the Defendant Company as a Sales Manager since November 29, 2008, and was posted at Patparganj, Delhi-110092. However, due to the nature of his sales job, he was frequently traveling to different offices in the NCR. During his employment, he coordinated with the Plaintiff, Mr. Abhishek Gupta, and Mr. Anil Sahoo, and the Plaintiff reported to Mr. Abhishek Gupta. In August 2011, Mr. Abhishek Gupta verbally instructed him not to report to the Plaintiff anymore and instead to coordinate with Mr. Gokul Bisht along with him. Shri Sumeet Joshi further mentioned that the Plaintiff's official email was non-functional, and he was provided with an alternate email ID of the Plaintiff, i.e., [email protected], for further communication. He observed the Plaintiff sitting idle in offices, unassigned VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.11.22 14:22:45 +0530 CS No. 116/16 Mohan Singh Bisht Vs. M/s HBL Nife Power System Ltd. Page no. 8 of 28 any work, while his attendance was still being marked, and his salary was not disbursed after July 2011. He also heard from colleagues that the Company was terminating some of its staff, which was a common topic of discussion. He asserted that the modus operandi of the Defendant Company was to frustrate employees by not assigning them work and withholding their salaries, compelling them to resign. He stated that the Plaintiff, along with other employees, was a victim of this nefarious act by the Defendant Company, where salaries were withheld, and employees were pressured to resign.
PW-4 underwent an extensive cross-examination by the counsel for the defendants.
Sh. Amit Bisht was examined as PW-5 and submitted his affidavit marked as Ex. PW-5/A during his examination-in- chief. He stated that he was appointed by the Defendant Company as Maintenance Executive (IT) effective from 12.05.2006, initially posted at 263, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi-110092, and later transferred to Jaipur with additional responsibilities in warehouse and marketing. He testified that employees' salaries were credited to their respective bank accounts, but his salary for July 2011 was not credited until 10.08.2011, and he was not allowed to VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.11.22 14:22:55 +0530 CS No. 116/16 Mohan Singh Bisht Vs. M/s HBL Nife Power System Ltd. Page no. 9 of 28 mark his attendance from August 2011 onward. When confronted, the Regional Manager in Rajasthan, Mr. Sachin Kumar, attributed the delay to business losses and assured that the attendance register issue would be resolved. Subsequently, his salary was paid in cash instead of being credited to his account. On 31.10.2011, Mr. Sachin Kumar verbally informed him that his services were no longer required, and despite continuing to work until that date, his salary for the last four months and other legal benefits were not paid.
Shri Amit Bisht learned that other employees, including the Plaintiff, faced similar issues. He sent a legal notice to the Defendants on 17.11.2011, which was served but not replied to; instead, he was called to meet Sri G.M. Rao at the New Delhi office on 26.11.2011. Upon arrival, he witnessed Sri Rao angrily asking the Plaintiff to resign, which the Plaintiff refused. Shri Amit Bisht was also told to resign and, feeling intimidated, revealed that he had seen a list of employees the company intended to terminate, including himself. He agreed to resign if his account was settled, which was done on the same day.
He authenticated the legal notice dated 17.11.2011, which was marked as Ex. PW-5/1. Digitally signed VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2024.11.22 14:23:03 +0530 CS No. 116/16 Mohan Singh Bisht Vs. M/s HBL Nife Power System Ltd. Page no. 10 of 28 PW-5 underwent an extensive cross-examination by the counsel for the defendants.
To prove his case, the Plaintiff testified as PW-6 and tendered his affidavit, marked as Ex. PW-6/A, during his examination-in-chief, wherein he reiterated the contents of the plaint. He relied on the following documents:
1. Appointment letter dated 15.10.2003 as Ex.
PW-6/1.
2. Letter dated 22.06.2005 as Ex. PW-6/2.
3. Documents pertaining to revision of salary as Ex. PW-6/3 (colly).
4. Letters of appreciation dated 07.06.2007 and 12.11.2010 as Ex. PW-6/4 (colly).
5. Copy of email dated 05.08.2011 as Ex.
PW-6/5.
6. Copy of email dated 06.08.2011 and 08.08.2011 as Ex. PW-6/6 and Ex.
PW-6/7.
7. Copies of email dated 08.08.2011, 09.08.2011, 10.08.2011, 11.08.2011, 12.08.2011, 16.08.2011, 17.08.2011, 18.08.2011 and 19.08.2011 as Ex.
PW-6/8 (colly).
8. Copy of email dated 19.08.2011 and 23.08.2011 as Ex. PW-6/9 (colly).
9. Copy of email dated 19.11.2011 as Ex.
PW-6/10.
10. Copy of email dated 21.11.2011 as Ex.
PW-6/11.
11. Copies of email dated 28.01.2011 and 18.02.2012 as Ex. PW-6/12 (colly).
12. Copies of legal notice dated 02.03.2012 as VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.11.22 14:23:13 +0530 CS No. 116/16 Mohan Singh Bisht Vs. M/s HBL Nife Power System Ltd. Page no. 11 of 28 Ex. PW-6/13.
13. Copy of reply dated 20.03.2012 as Ex.
PW-6/14.
14. Copy of statement of salary account for a period w.e.f. 01.04.2011 to 28.07.2012 as Ex. PW-6/15.
15. CD as Ex. PW-6/16.
He underwent an extensive cross-examination conducted by the counsel for the defendants.
Sh. Aman Kapoor (Assistant Manager, Axis Bank) was examined as PW-7 and presented a certified copy of the authority letter, the statement of account no. 015010100124546 (from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012), and the certificate under Section 2A of the Bankers Book Evidence Act, 1891, marked as Ex. PW-7/A. PW-7 was then cross-examined by the counsel for the defendants.
Defendant's Evidence:-
7. Sh. G.M. Rao (defendant no. 2 and Senior Manager of the defendant company) testified as DW-1. During his examination-in-chief, he submitted his affidavit, marked as Ex. DW-1/A, wherein he reiterated certain contents of the written statement.
He was then extensively cross-examined by the counsel for VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.11.22 14:23:23 +0530 CS No. 116/16 Mohan Singh Bisht Vs. M/s HBL Nife Power System Ltd. Page no. 12 of 28 the plaintiff.
Arguments:-
8. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff argued in alignment with the Plaintiff's case and highlighted key portions of the cross-examination of the Defendant's witnesses. He submitted that the Plaintiff was initially appointed as a contractual employee of Defendant No. 1 through an offer letter dated 15.10.2003 (Ex. PW-6/1) for a period of one year. However, before the expiration of this contractual term, the Plaintiff was permanently appointed through an appointment letter dated 16.03.2004 (Ex. PW-6/3), accompanied by an increase in salary. The counsel drew the Court's attention to the third line of the cross-examination of DW-1, Sh. G.M. Rao, wherein he admitted that Ex. PW-6/3 (colly), a letter dated 16.03.2004, is the offer letter issued to the plaintiff.
He contended that these facts establish that the Plaintiff was a permanent employee of Defendant No. 1 company. He further submitted that the Plaintiff received a salary until June 2011 but was not allowed to mark his attendance in the register after 03.08.2011. Moreover, the Plaintiff was not assigned any work after this date, and his official email account provided by the Defendant company was blocked on VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG Date: 2024.11.22 GARG 14:23:32 +0530 CS No. 116/16 Mohan Singh Bisht Vs. M/s HBL Nife Power System Ltd. Page no. 13 of 28 04.08.2011. Subsequently, the Plaintiff communicated with the Defendant company through an alternate email ID.
It was further argued that the Plaintiff's official mobile number, provided by the Defendant company, was blocked on 17.08.2011. On 19.08.2011, the Plaintiff emailed the company to provide his alternate mobile number. Following this, on receiving an email from the Defendant company on 19.08.2011, the Plaintiff deposited the laptop and data card with the company's IT Department.
The counsel further submitted that on 19.08.2011, the plaintiff received an email from the company's manager, Sh. G.M. Rao, requesting a meeting on 28.08.2011, which was later rescheduled to 26.08.2011. During the meeting on 26.08.2011, Sh. Rao allegedly misbehaved with the plaintiff and attempted to forcibly take his laptop.
Counsel further argued that a legal notice was sent on 02.03.2012, to which the Defendant replied. He concluded by praying for a decree in favor of the Plaintiff.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the statements of PW-3 and PW-4, asserting that no employee in Defendant No. 1 company is permanent, cannot be relied VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG Date: 2024.11.22 GARG 14:23:41 +0530 CS No. 116/16 Mohan Singh Bisht Vs. M/s HBL Nife Power System Ltd. Page no. 14 of 28 upon.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the Defendants submitted that the Plaintiff's case is false and devoid of merit. He argued that even if the Plaintiff's case is accepted as true, no relief can be granted to him. He pointed out that the Plaintiff has not provided any basis for calculating the claimed salary amount of Rs. 4,59,000/- and has similarly failed to substantiate his claim for an annual bonus of Rs. 27,000/- for the year 2011-2012. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has not offered any rationale for claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and related damages.
Counsel highlighted inconsistencies in the Plaintiff's testimony during cross-examination, where the Plaintiff described the contract letter dated 15.10.2003 as "Bekaar" (useless) and claimed he was promoted to the position of Executive without providing any evidence to support this assertion. He further argued that no letter exists to substantiate the Plaintiff's claim of being made a permanent employee.
Regarding the alleged incident of snatching the laptop, learned counsel emphasized that the Plaintiff himself admitted to depositing the laptop on 23.08.2011, rendering VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG Date: 2024.11.22 GARG 14:23:50 +0530 CS No. 116/16 Mohan Singh Bisht Vs. M/s HBL Nife Power System Ltd. Page no. 15 of 28 the claim of an attempt to snatch it on 26.08.2011 implausible. He reasoned that if such an act were intended, it could have easily been executed with the help of other staff members present at the time.
The counsel further contended that no employee, including senior officials like the CFO or CEO, is employed on a permanent basis in Defendant No. 1 company, M/s HBL Nife Power Systems Ltd. He referred to the Plaintiff's own cross-examination, where the Plaintiff admitted he was unaware of the employment terms of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and whether they were permanent employees. The Plaintiff's witnesses, PW-3 Sh. Govind Singh Mehra and PW-4 Sh. Sumit Joshi, who were former employees of Defendant No. 1, also testified that their services ended upon the expiry of their respective contracts and that all employees of Defendant No. 1 were employed on a contractual basis.
Learned counsel also raised the issue of territorial jurisdiction, referring to Clause 18 of the Plaintiff's appointment letter (Ex. PW-6/1), which states that disputes or litigation arising between the parties shall be decided exclusively by the courts at Hyderabad/Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh. He argued that by this agreement, the jurisdiction of this court is excluded and cited the decision of VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG Date: 2024.11.22 GARG 14:23:59 +0530 CS No. 116/16 Mohan Singh Bisht Vs. M/s HBL Nife Power System Ltd. Page no. 16 of 28 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. vs. Andhra Pradesh Agencies, Salem, AIR 1989 SC 1239, to support this contention.
Lastly, he submitted that even if the Defendants' actions are considered arbitrary, as alleged in the prayer clause (a) for a declaration, no damages can be awarded since Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not apply to private individuals or companies. He concluded by praying for the dismissal of the suit with heavy costs.
9. I have attentively heard the rival contentions of both parties, meticulously examined the record, and carefully considered the relevant legal provisions and applicable judicial precedents.
Issue-wise findings:-
10. Issue no. 1 to 4:
All the issues in this case are interconnected and intertwined; hence, they are being addressed together.
The plaintiff claims that he was initially appointed as a contractual employee for one year by Defendant No. 1 through an appointment letter dated 15.10.2003, marked as Ex. PW6/1 in his evidence. The defendants have not denied Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2024.11.22 14:24:07 +0530 CS No. 116/16 Mohan Singh Bisht Vs. M/s HBL Nife Power System Ltd. Page no. 17 of 28 this appointment letter. The plaintiff further contends that he was made a permanent employee through a letter dated 16.03.2004, marked as Ex. PW6/3 in his evidence. However, Ex. PW6/3 is a collection of documents (colly) spanning 11 pages, with only the first page bearing detailed text purportedly dated 16.03.2004, while the remaining pages provide salary and allowance details on different dates. Each page carries a distinct date, and no two pages bear the same date.
The first page of Ex. PW6/3 reads:
" ANNEXURE-P.3(COLLY) HBL NIFE POWER SYSTEMS LIMITED To, NAME : MOHAN SINGH BISHT CODE NO : HBL 7987 [42246] BASIC PAY : RS. 2354.00 MONTHLY GROSS PAY : RS. 3716.00 DIVISION : DELHI BRANCH LOCATION : BRANCHES During the recruitment process, at the time of interview, you have been told the concept of total cost to the Company (TCC) (as distinct from Gross Monthly Salary) while fixing your compensation. As agreed between us TCC means what Co's expenditure including Co's contributions and Gross Salary means the salary what is payable to you every month subject to statutory deductions. You have agreed to the same and accordingly an "Offer Letter" was issued to you, mentioning therein that a detailed appointment order with terms and conditions and break-up of the salary will be issued at the time of your joining.Digitally signed
VIKAS by VIKAS GARG
Date:
GARG 2024.11.22
14:24:17 +0530
CS No. 116/16 Mohan Singh Bisht Vs. M/s HBL Nife Power System Ltd. Page no. 18 of 28 At the time of your joining. "Appointment Order" with terms & conditions and monthly gross salary with its break-
up was issued and accepted by you.
Subsequent salary revisions were also effected similarly.
With a view to update the co's record in this regard you are requested to sign the duplicate copy of this letter as a token of your confirmation of the above.
for HBL NIFE POWER SYSTEMS LIMITED (U VISWANATHAN) DY. GENERAL MANAGER-P&A"
The plaintiff argues that this document establishes his status as a permanent employee. However, the text does not support this contention. It merely outlines the concept of "total cost to the company" and explicitly states - "At the time of your joining, appointment order with terms and conditions and monthly gross salary with its break-up was issued and accepted by you." This indicates that the plaintiff accepted the terms of his original appointment letter (Ex. PW6/1). There is no language in Ex. PW6/3 to suggest that it converted the plaintiff into a permanent employee.
The plaintiff has neither explicitly claimed in the plaint that he was made a permanent employee by Defendant No. 1 nor produced any evidence of such terms and conditions beyond those in the contractual appointment letter dated 15.10.2003. Learned counsel for the defendants argued that Defendant Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2024.11.22 14:24:26 +0530 CS No. 116/16 Mohan Singh Bisht Vs. M/s HBL Nife Power System Ltd. Page no. 19 of 28 No. 1 does not employ permanent staff, including senior executives such as the CEO or CFO. Even Defendants No. 2 and 3 are not permanent employees. During cross- examination, the plaintiff admitted that he was unaware of whether Defendant No. 1 employs any staff on a permanent basis. PW-3, a witness for the plaintiff, also stated during cross-examination that all employees of Defendant No. 1 are engaged on a contract basis.
While learned counsel for the plaintiff challenged the reliability of PW-3's statement, the court does not solely rely on it. The plaintiff's own admission in cross-examination that he was unaware of any permanent employees in Defendant No. 1 raises doubts about his claim of being a permanent employee. Furthermore, the plaintiff himself stated during cross-examination that his contract ended in June 2007, as per his salary slip. No evidence was filed to substantiate the plaintiff's claim of permanent employment.
The plaintiff's reliance on DW-1's admission in cross- examination, acknowledging Ex. PW6/3 as an offer letter, does not establish the plaintiff's status as a permanent employee.
The defendants contended that no notice was required to VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.11.22 14:24:36 +0530 CS No. 116/16 Mohan Singh Bisht Vs. M/s HBL Nife Power System Ltd. Page no. 20 of 28 terminate the plaintiff's services, as he continued on a contractual basis after the expiration of his initial one-year term under the appointment letter dated 15.10.2003. This argument holds merit, as no other terms or conditions have been brought on record to indicate the duration or specific details of the service. The actions of stopping the plaintiff from marking attendance, blocking his official email and mobile number, and directing him to return the laptop and data card unequivocally demonstrate that the plaintiff was removed from service.
The plaintiff's subsequent acts of providing alternative private email and mobile numbers do not negate his removal from service. The contention in the written statement that the plaintiff voluntarily left the job is implausible, as the above actions demonstrate that the defendant company terminated his services.
Regarding the claim of ₹4,59,000/- as unpaid salary until November 2012, the plaintiff has provided no clear calculation or explanation. Additionally, the plaintiff admitted that he did not perform any work for the company after 3rd August 2011. Consequently, his claim for an annual bonus of ₹27,000/- for 2011-2012 is also without merit. Furthermore, this bonus claim is unsupported, as neither the VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG Date: 2024.11.22 GARG 14:24:46 +0530 CS No. 116/16 Mohan Singh Bisht Vs. M/s HBL Nife Power System Ltd. Page no. 21 of 28 appointment letter nor any evidence indicates that bonuses were ever paid.
Prayer (A) seeks a declaration that the defendants' actions in removing the plaintiff from employment were arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of due process. However, even if such a declaration were granted, it would not entitle the plaintiff to damages. Article 14 of the Constitution, which protects against arbitrariness, does not apply to private entities such as the defendants.
In view of the above discussion and considering the preponderance of probabilities, issues no. 1 to 3 are decided in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff. The plaintiff has failed to establish entitlement to any damages or the relief sought in the suit. However, issue no. 4 is decided in favor of the plaintiff, as it has been concluded that the plaintiff did not leave the job voluntarily. Accordingly, issues no. 1 to 4 are decided as stated.
Issue no. 5:
The defendants have contended that this court lacks territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit, drawing attention to clause 18 of the appointment letter dated 15.10.2003. Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date:
GARG 2024.11.22
14:24:56 +0530
CS No. 116/16 Mohan Singh Bisht Vs. M/s HBL Nife Power System Ltd. Page no. 22 of 28 As previously discussed, no other agreement or appointment letter, apart from the appointment letter dated 15.10.2003, has been brought on record to establish the terms and conditions of the plaintiff's employment. Consequently, the court is bound to adhere to the terms and conditions outlined in the appointment letter dated 15.10.2003.
In paragraph 4 of the preliminary objections in the written statement, the defendants raised the issue of this court's lack of territorial jurisdiction, citing clause 18 of the appointment letter. They argued that the clause confers exclusive jurisdiction over disputes to the courts of Hyderabad/Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh.
In response, the plaintiff, in the replication/rejoinder, argued that the defendants conduct their business within the jurisdiction of this court and that the cause of action has arisen here. This claim is advanced to establish the jurisdiction of this court despite the contractual stipulation.
At this stage, it is pertinent to refer to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which is reproduced below for reference:
"20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.-- Subject to the VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.11.22 14:25:07 +0530 CS No. 116/16 Mohan Singh Bisht Vs. M/s HBL Nife Power System Ltd. Page no. 23 of 28 limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction--
(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
Explanation: A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place."
This provision lays down the criteria for determining the jurisdiction of the court. It allows suits to be instituted where the defendant resides, carries on business, or where the cause of action arises, subject to the restrictions therein.
The ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case N.V. Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2024.11.22 14:25:16 +0530 CS No. 116/16 Mohan Singh Bisht Vs. M/s HBL Nife Power System Ltd. Page no. 24 of 28 Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Frost Falcon Distilleries Ltd. , 2018:DHC:7284, is particularly relevant to the present discussion. In this case, the Hon'ble High Court observed:
"14. As would immediately become clear on a careful reading of the aforesaid, Supreme Court in Patel Roadways Ltd. supra though held the explanation to Section 20 of the CPC to be an explanation to Clause (a) thereof rather than to Clause (c) thereof but was concerned with only the alternative "carries on business", of the several alternatives in Clause (a). It was not the contention before the Supreme Court in Patel Roadways Ltd. supra that the place where the registered office of a corporation / company is situated is also the place where the corporation, if a defendant in the suit, "actually and voluntarily resides". Thus, no finding was returned in the said judgment on the said aspect. Supreme Court, in the context only of alternative "carries on business" in Clause (a) of Section 20 having held that by virtue of explanation, which also is only to, where a corporation shall be deemed to carry on business, having held that where a defendant company / corporation has its principal office at one place and subordinate office at another place and cause of action arises at a place where the subordinate office is located, suit has to be filed only in the Court within whose jurisdiction the company / corporation has its subordinate office and not in Court within whose jurisdiction it has its VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.11.22 14:25:26 +0530 CS No. 116/16 Mohan Singh Bisht Vs. M/s HBL Nife Power System Ltd. Page no. 25 of 28 principal office, cannot be held to have also held that notwithstanding the word "or" between the words "actually and voluntarily resides" or "carries on business" or "personally works for gain", the alternative of suing the corporation at the place where it actually and voluntarily resides is also not available. The judgment cannot be read as eclipsing the option given by the legislature to a plaintiff, under Section 20(a) of the Code, of suing at the place where the defendant, at the time of commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides.
15. I have not come across any judgment holding that in case a defendant is a company or a corporation, only the option in Section 20(a) of the CPC, of "carries on business" is available and not the option of "actually and voluntarily resides". In Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs. Kartick Das (1994) 4 SCC 225, it was held, as far as India is concerned, the residence of the company is where the registered office is located and normally cases should be filed only where the registered office of the company is situated. Again, in Dhodha House Vs. S.K. Maingi (2006) 9 SCC 41, it was reiterated that ordinarily the residence of the company would be where its registered office is. Once it is so, a company can always be sued under Section 20(a) of the CPC, in the Court within whose jurisdiction the registered office of the company is located. Not only as per the language of the explanation to Section 20 but even as per Patel Roadways Ltd., the explanation to Section 20 is attracted only to VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.11.22 14:25:33 +0530 CS No. 116/16 Mohan Singh Bisht Vs. M/s HBL Nife Power System Ltd. Page no. 26 of 28 the alternative "carries on business" in Section 20(a) and not to the alternative "actually and voluntarily resides"
In the present case, the plaintiff admitted that the registered office of the defendant is situated in Hyderabad. This was further confirmed during the cross-examination of PW-6/plaintiff, where it was acknowledged that the registered office of Defendant No. 1 is in Hyderabad. Furthermore, at the bottom of the appointment letter dated 15.10.2003 (Ex. PW6/1), the registered office is also specified as Hyderabad.
As such, the Hyderabad Court also has jurisdiction to adjudicate the present suit. Additionally, if the plaintiff's version is accepted, this court would also have jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
When two or more courts have jurisdiction over the subject matter of a suit, the jurisdiction of one or more courts can be excluded by a valid agreement between the parties.
Clause 18 of the appointment letter is reproduced below:
"That, only the Courts situated at Hyderabad / secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh shall have jurisdiction to decide upon any dispute or litigation between the parties hereto." Digitally signed VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2024.11.22 14:25:42 +0530 CS No. 116/16 Mohan Singh Bisht Vs. M/s HBL Nife Power System Ltd. Page no. 27 of 28 By virtue of that clause, which explicitly includes the word "only," the jurisdiction of this court is excluded. The decision of the Apex Court in A.B.C. Laminart Private Limited v. Andhra Pradesh Agencies, Salem, AIR 1989 SC 1239, decided on March 13, 1989, as referred to by the learned counsel for the defendants, is also relevant in this context.
In view of the above discussion, it is concluded that this court lacks territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. Accordingly, the present issue is decided against the plaintiff.
Relief:-
11. In light of the findings on all issues, the plaintiffs' suit is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.
12. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
14. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by VIKAS Pronounced in the open court VIKAS GARG Date:
on 22.11.2024 GARG 2024.11.22
14:25:53
+0530
(Vikas Garg)
District Judge-05 /EAST)
KKD, Delhi-22.11.2024
CS No. 116/16 Mohan Singh Bisht Vs. M/s HBL Nife Power System Ltd. Page no. 28 of 28