Delhi District Court
Shrikant vs Spectar Digi Services Pvt Ltd on 6 June, 2024
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-01, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY SH. SAHIL KHURMI
CNR No:-DLCT030057882019
CS SCJ No.2494/2019
Sh. Shrikant
S/o Sh. Ompal
R/o 203-C, Flat No.5.
Arjun Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi-110029. ....Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Spectar Digi Services Pvt Ltd
Through its Managing Director
2109, 1st and 2nd Floor,
Desh Bandhu Gupta Road,
Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005.
Also at:
B-03, FF Uppal,
Sohna Road, Gurugram,
Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. ...Defendant
Date of institution of suit 13.08.2019
Date on which reserved for judgment 29.05.2024
Date of pronouncement of judgment 06.06.2024
Decision: Partly Decreed
Digitally
signed by
Sahil Sahil Khurmi
Date:
Khurmi 2024.06.06
CS SCJ No.2494/2019 16:28:48 Page No.1 of 17
+0530
SUIT FOR COMPENSATION AND DAMAGES FOR
WRONGFUL DISMISSAL & BREACH OF CONTRACT.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS:
1. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts as per the plaint are that defendant No.1 i.e. M/s Spectar Digi Services Pvt Ltd is the vendor to defendant No.2 and the plaintiff received an email dated 29.01.2019 whereby his interview was scheduled on 30.01.2019 at the office of defendant No.2. 1.1 It is further stated that on 30.01.2019, the plaintiff finished his interview and got selected, which was confirmed vide email dated 30.01.2019 by the director of defendant No.1 and the plaintiff was appointed to the post of Consultant Workplace Support Engineer at salary of Rs.31,000/- per month. The plaintiff has filed the offer letter dated 02.02.2019 on record. 1.2 That on 30.04.2019 the plaintiff received telephonic call from Dheeraj Thakur (Human Resource) and told him to put his resignation. That on being asked for the reason, the defendants did not reply to his queries. That on 03.05.2019, the defendant No.1 sent an email answering his queries regarding his performance. That the plaintiff received another email from defendant no.1 on same day i.e., 03.05.2019 informing the plaintiff that he will be relieved from work on 31.05.2019 and vide the said email, 30 days notice of termination was given. 1.3 That on 06.05.2019, plaintiff sent email to the defendants regarding his work performance. That on 16.05.2019, plaintiff received an email from defendant No.1 stating that 30.05.2019 Sahil Khurmi would be last day oh service of the plaintiff. That the plaintiff Digitally signed requested the defendants to update his KYC but to no avail. It is by Sahil Khurmi Date: 2024.06.06 16:28:56 +0530 CS SCJ No.2494/2019 Page No.2 of 17 further stated that the defendant has worked with full dedication and devotion but he was terminated illegally from service. That the plaintiff has not been given experience certificate and relieving letter from the defendant. Hence, the present suit.
2. Summons of the suit have been served on the defendants, upon which defendants appeared through counsel and the matter was listed for filing of written statement on behalf of defendants.
3. It is pertinent to mention that vide Order dated 29.10.2021, the defendant No.2 was deleted from the array of parties on application u/O 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by defendant No.2.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NO.1.
4. It is stated by defendant No.1 that no term of the offer letter has been violated by defendant as one month notice of termination was given to the plaintiff vide email dated 03.05.2019 and the services of the defendant were terminated w.e.f 31.05.2019 and the defendant was duly paid salary till
02.06.2019, since the notice was given on 03.05.2019.
REPLICATION:
5. Plaintiff has filed replication to the written statement of defendant thereby reiterating the averments made in the plaint and denying the averments made in the written statement.
6. Thereafter the pleadings were complete and the following issues were framed:
Sahil
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of Rs. 62,000/-
towards two months remuneration along with pendentelite and Khurmi Digitally signed future interest @ 18% per annum from 30.05.2019 till its by Sahil Khurmi Date: 2024.06.06 16:29:06 +0530 CS SCJ No.2494/2019 Page No.3 of 17 realization, as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction, thereby directing the defendant to supply the experience certificate and relieving letter to plaintiff? OPP
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to compensation towards mental agony and harassment? OPP
4. Whether no cause of action has accrued in favour of plaintiff? OPD
5. Relief.
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE:-
7. Plaintiff in order to prove his case has got examined himself as PW-1. PW-1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied on the following documents:-
Mark A(colly) Copy of diploma certificate dated 07.06.2012 issued by IACM Smart learn Ltd along with copy of Aadhar Card.
Ex.PW1/B Copy of email dated 29.01.2019.
Ex.PW1/C and Copy of email and offer letter both dated Ex.PW1/D 30.01.2019. Ex.PW1/E Copy of email dated 01.05.2019. Ex.PW1/F Copy of email dated 03.05.2019
Ex.PW1/G Copy of email dated 06.05.2019. Sahil Ex.PW1/H(colly) Copy of email dated 16.05.2019. Khurmi Ex.PW1/I(colly) Copy of email dated 17.05.2019. Digitally signed by Sahil Khurmi Ex.PW1/J(colly) Copy of email dated12.04.2019 Date:
2024.06.06 16:29:14 +0530 CS SCJ No.2494/2019 Page No.4 of 17 along with three months salary slips. Mark B Copy of legal notice dated 17.05.2019. Ex.PW1/K Postal receipt and tracking reports. Mark C Copy of reply dated 04.06.2019. Ex.PW1/M Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.PW1/N Present suit. 7.1 PW-1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for
defendant and thereafter plaintiff evidence was closed on separate statement of plaintiff and the matter was fixed for defence evidence.
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE:
8. In defence evidence, Ms. Jyoti Rani Jha/AR of the defendant has been examined as DW-1. DW-1 relied upon Ex.
PW-1/D2, Ex. PW1/D3, Ex. PW1/D4, Ex. PW1/D5, Ex. PW1/D1 and Mark C. DW-1 further relied on the following documents:-
EX. DW-1/1 Board resolution dated 18.11.2023 EX. DW-1/2 Certificate / affidavit under Section 63 read with Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. Mark-X Board resolution dated 19.09.2019. EX.DW-1/4 (Colly) E-mail dated 01.06.2019 remuneration slip of February,2019 to April 2019 and full and final Sahil settlement remuneration slip of Khurmi May, 2019.Digitally signed
EX.DW-1/5 (Colly) E-mail dated 30.01.2019 sent by the by Sahil Khurmi Date: 2024.06.06 16:29:24 CS SCJ No.2494/2019 Page No.5 of 17 +0530 company with letter of offer and email dated 31.01.2019 sent by the plaintiff and email sent by the plaintiff.
EX. DW-1/6 E-mail dated 01.05.2019 sent by the plaintiff EX.DW-1/7(Colly) E-mails both dated 06.05.2019 and 07.05.2019, exchanged between the plaintiff and defendant.
EX.DW1/9 Statement of account. 8.1 DW-1 was duly cross examined on behalf of plaintiff. 8.2 Thereafter, defence evidence was closed on separate statement of AR of the defendant.
9. I have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record of the case meticulously.
FINDINGS ON ISSUES:-
ISSUE NO.1:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of Rs. 62,000/- towards two months remuneration along with pendentelite and future interest @ 18% per annum from 30.05.2019 till its realization, as prayed for? OPP
10. Onus to prove this issue is on the plaintiff. It is the case of plaintiff that he was illegally terminated from the company of Sahil defendant No.1 despite his good performance. It is further stated that the parameter of the defendant no.1 to assess the Khurmi performance of the plaintiff with his peer is wrong and illegal.
Digitally signedHence the present suit has been filed. Learned Counsel for by Sahil Khurmi Date: 2024.06.06 16:29:32 +0530 CS SCJ No.2494/2019 Page No.6 of 17 plaintiff has contended that in cases of wrongful termination of service, the employee is entitled to compensation and dues.
11. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendant that the plaintiff was duly terminated as per law and as per the terms and conditions of the contract. It is averred by defendant that the plaintiff was given 30 days advance notice on 03.05.2019 for his termination and further, he was duly paid salary till 02.06.2019. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the following judgments:
1. Deepali Gundu Surwase vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak & Ors. (Civil Appeal no. 6767 of 2013)
2. Vikas Kumar vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation W.P.(C) 8692 of 2018
3. Jagbir Singh vs Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board (2009) 15 SCC 327
4. The Management Guru Gobind Indrapastha University vs Lokesh Kumar & anr. W.P.(C) 4822 of 2014
5. Triloki v Ashok Hotel WP(C)5227/2012 Ld. Counsel for the defendant has relied upon the following judgments:
1. Binny Ltd. & Anr. Vs Sadasivan & ors. (2005) 6 SCC 657
2. L.M.Khosla vs Thai Airways International Public Company Ltd. (2012) SCC Online Del 4019 Sahil Khurmi
3. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs Amritsar Gas Service & Digitally signed ors. (1991) 1 SCC 533 by Sahil Khurmi Date: 2024.06.06 16:29:40 +0530 CS SCJ No.2494/2019 Page No.7 of 17
4. Naresh Kumar vs. Sh. Hiroshi Maniva & Ors. 2015 SCC Online Del 13315
12. I have perused the judgments relied upon by both parties. At this juncture, it is profitable to refer to Clause 10 of offer letter dated 30.01.2019 Ex. PW1/D reads as:
10) Either of the party can terminate the engagement with a written notice of 1 month.
13. The offer letter dated 30.01.2019 is duly admitted by both the parties and Clause 10 of the said letter is also undisputed and relied upon by both parties. As per the clause 10 of the offer letter, either party can terminate the contract with 30 days notice. The defendant no.1 has duly given advance notice dated 31.05.2019 regarding termination of the defendant and it is also apposite to note that the defendant was also paid salary till 02.06.2019 to the plaintiff. The same is not denied by the plaintiff.
14. The only grievance of the plaintiff is that he was terminated illegally as his work performance was good and thus he is entitled to compensation, as prayed for.
15. At this juncture, it is profitable to refer to judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in M/S G4S Security Services (I) Pvt Ltd vs Dhiraj Negi RFA No. 122/2015 decided on 23 August Sahil 2018, wherein reliance was placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Khurmi Supreme Court in S.C.Shetty vs Bharat Nidhi Limited AIR 1958 Digitally SC 12. The following was observed by Hon'ble High Court of signed by Sahil Khurmi Delhi: Date:
2024.06.06 16:29:53 +0530 CS SCJ No.2494/2019 Page No.8 of 17
4. Therefore, once the contract is a private employment, and the same is terminable by two month's notice, the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.C.Shetty vs Bharat Nidhi Limited AIR 1958 SC 12 applies which provides that a contract of private employment ceases on the period of notice being served out or pay being given in lieu of the notice period.
I have had an occasion to refer to the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.C. Shetty(supra) in various cases, and the last of such case is the judgment in the case of Mrs. Malini Rajendran Vs. Federation of Hotel &Restaurant Association of India & Others, 2017 (242) DLT 167.The relevant paragraph of the judgment in the case of Mrs. Malini Rajendran(supra) is paragraph 5, and the same reads as under:-
5.(i) Though the appellant/plaintiff pleads before this Court that the appellant/plaintiff had claimed the relief of restitution of services as also damages by alleging violation of Clause 11 of the appointment letter dated 3.10.2006, however, I have not found any cause of action specifically pleaded in the plaint by making reference to Clause 11 of the appointment letter dated 3.10.2006, that the appellant/plaintiff has not been given three months notice or that the appellant/plaintiff has not being given three months salary in lieu of notice terminating services. Sahil
(ii) For the sake of arguments and assuming Khurmi that the appellant/plaintiff had pleaded a cause Digitally signed of action of illegal termination of services by by Sahil Khurmi not being given three months notice or three Date:
2024.06.06 16:30:01 +0530 CS SCJ No.2494/2019 Page No.9 of 17 months salary in lieu thereof, however, the law is well settled in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Shetty Vs. Bharat Nidhi Ltd., AIR 1958 SC 12 and in which judgment the Supreme Court has held that even if there is illegal termination of contractual services of an employee, the maximum damages which an employee as a grievance of illegal termination of services is entitled to is the salary for notice period. The relevant para of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Shetty(supra) is para 12 and which para reads as under:- "12. The position as it obtains in the ordinary law of master and servant is quite clear. The master who wrongfully dismisses his servant is bound to pay him such damages as will compensate him for the wrong that he has sustained.
"They are to be assessed by reference to the amount earned in the service wrongfully terminated and the time likely to elapse before the servant obtains another post for which he fitted. If the contract expressly provides that it is terminable upon, e.g., a month's notice, the damages will ordinarily be a month's wages.No compensation can be claimed in respect of the injury done to the servant's feelings by the circumstances of his dismissal, nor in respect of extra difficulty of finding work resulting Sahil from those circumstances. A servant who has Khurmi been wrongfully dismissed must use diligence Digitally signed to seek another employment, and the fact that by Sahil Khurmi he has been offered a suitable post may be Date:
2024.06.06 taken into account in assessing the damages." 16:30:07 +0530 CS SCJ No.2494/2019 Page No.10 of 17
16. The scope of damages in a contract of employment which provides termination of service by means of a notice of a certain period was also considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in L.M.Khosla vs Thai Airways International Public Company Ltd. And Anr. 2012 SCC Online Del 4019; wherein it was held that a contract of private employment is not similar to the public employment. The Hon'ble Court held that a contract of employment which provides for termination of services by one month's notice, the employee will only be entitled to one month's pay in terms of employment contract. The Court held that in such cases, an employee is not entitled to any relief of continuation in service or pay with consequential benefits for alleged remaining period of service till the date of his superannuation. In this matter, the High Court also interpreted the ratio of the decision in the matter of S.S.Shetty's case (supra) and held as under;
8. In view of the aforesaid judgments, the following conclusions in law emerge:-
(i) A contract of private employment is not similar to the public employment and in such private employment there is no scope of applicability of the principles of administrative law/public law.
(ii) A contract of employment which provides termination of services by one month's notice, then, at best the employee will only be entitled to one month's pay in terms of the employment contract. An employee is not entitled to any relief of Sahil continuation in services or pay with consequential benefits for alleged remaining Khurmi period of services till the date of his Digitally signed superannuation. by Sahil Khurmi Date: 2024.06.06 (emphasis supplied) 16:30:13 +0530 CS SCJ No.2494/2019 Page No.11 of 17
17. In Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas Service & Ors (1991) 1 SCC 533, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
terminated a distributorship agreement on account of complaints that Amritsar Gas Service was selling unauthorized gas connections. The agreement contained two clauses which governed termination - one which provided for termination on the happening of certain specified events and another which entitled either party to terminate the agreement by giving 30 days' notice to the other party, without assigning any reason for such termination. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. terminated the agreement under the former clause. An arbitral tribunal found the termination to be a breach of contract and held that Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. was liable to restore the distributorship and also pay compensation. The Supreme Court was of the view that the agreement was revocable and therefore determinable in nature under the Act as per Section 14(1)(c) of Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court also held that once the arbitral tribunal found that the termination for alleged breach was wrongful, the only remedy which could be granted was compensation for the 30-day notice period, since the agreement was revocable without assigning any Sahil reason.
Khurmi
18. In Naresh Kumar vs. Sh. Hiroshi Maniva & Ors. 2015 Digitally signed by Sahil Khurmi SCC Online Del 13315, it was held by Delhi High Court that: Date:
2024.06.06 16:30:36 +0530
8. In view of the aforesaid judgments, the Sahil following conclusions in law emerge:-
Khurmi
(i) A contract of private employment is not similar to the public employment and Digitally signed by Sahil Khurmi in such private employment there is no Date:
2024.06.06 16:30:19 +0530 CS SCJ No.2494/2019 Page No.12 of 17 scope of applicability of the principles of administrative law/public law.
(ii) A contract of employment which provides termination of services by one month's notice, then, at best the employee will only be entitled to one month's pay in terms of the employment contract. An employee is not entitled to any relief of continuation in services or pay with consequential benefits for alleged remaining period of services till the date of his superannuation.
(iii) As per the provision of Section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a contract which is determinable in nature cannot be specifically enforced. Since the service contract in the present case is determinable by one month's notice there does not arise the question of giving of any reliefs which tantamount to enforcement of a determinable contract. As per Section 14(1)(b), a contract of personal service cannot be enforced when the employer is not the Government or "State" as per Article 12of the Constitution of India.
Plaintiff has in fact received one month's pay and therefore his claim will stand satisfied in law and he is not entitled to any reliefs as prayed for in prayer clauses in the suit."
4. It is therefore clear that the plaintiff cannot claim illegality of termination of his employment either for continuing the employment or for claiming any monetary amount as if he had continued in Sahil employment with the defendant no.7.
Khurmi Digitally signed
19. In the present case, admittedly the defendant has given by Sahil Khurmi Date: 2024.06.06 advance notice of termination on 03.05.2019 to the plaintiff and 16:30:25 +0530 CS SCJ No.2494/2019 Page No.13 of 17 also paid salary to the plaintiff till 02.06.2019. The same is uncontroverted by the plaintiff.
20. Adverting back to the facts of the present case, it is an admitted case that the contract of employment provided that the services of the plaintiff could have been terminated by giving one month notice. Thus, the contract of service was terminable and as per Section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a contract which is determinable in nature cannot be specifically enforced. As held in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd(supra), Naresh Kumar (supra), L.M.Khosla (supra), S.S.Shetty (supra) and M/S G4S Security Services(supra), a contract of employment which provides termination of services by one month's notice, then, at best the employee will only be entitled to one month's pay in terms of the employment contract, which stands already paid, in the present case. An employee is not entitled to any relief of continuation in services or pay with consequential benefits for alleged remaining period of services till the date of his superannuation. The judgments relied upon by the plaintiff are distinguishable on facts of the present case and thus would not come to rescue of the plaintiff.
21. The scope of applicability of principles of administrative law and public law may differ in cases of a contract of private employment and public employment. However, the mode of determining the damages remains same under both circumstances. The upshot of the above discussion is that in case the contract is determinable by giving notice for a prescribed Sahil period, the employee would, at best, be entitled to receive the pay & allowances for the prescribed notice period and nothing Khurmi beyond that provided it is established that he has been wrongfully Digitally signed by Sahil Khurmi Date:
2024.06.06 CS SCJ No.2494/2019 Page No.14 of 17 16:31:04 +0530 terminated from service.
22. For the reasons aforementioned, this Court has come to inescapable conclusion that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to two month's salary totaling to of Rs. 62,000/- for the remaining tenure as initially agreed by parties. Upon due appreciation of the evidence, it is evidently clear that plaintiff has been unable to prove his case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, the present issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Issue No.2:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendant to supply the copies of experience certificate and relieving letter to the plaintiff? OPP
23. The onus to prove this issue is on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has prayed that directions may be given to the defendant No.1 to supply the experience certificate and relieving letter to the plaintiff so that his future prospects of job are not affected.
24. On the contrary, it is the case of defendant that the plaintiff is not entitled to same. However, no specific reason for the same has been attributed by the defendant no.1.
25. In the considered view of this Court, experience certificate and relieving letter are very important documents for a person seeking job and not having either of them seriously affects the future prospects of the candidate for jobs. Experience certificate Sahil Khurmi and relieving letter is important because they serve as official Digitally signed documentation of an employee's past work experience. A by Sahil Khurmi Date: relieving letter is a crucial document issued to an employee when 2024.06.06 16:31:15 +0530 CS SCJ No.2494/2019 Page No.15 of 17 leaving a corporation. It's a formal communication between the organizations and the employee for accepting the resignation. It's an important document that each organization must see before joining the concerned person within the current organization. It is a judicially noticeable fact that nowadays, organizations don't proceed with the candidate profile despite being selected through the interview process if the candidate doesn't acquire a relieving letter. The relieving letter from the previous employer shows that the employee has cleared all the dues and don't have any pending work there, and it also helps organizations to make sure that the worker who goes to resign is relieved from their duties and isn't holding any company's data or internal property.
26. Adverting back to the facts of the present case, it is not disputed that the plaintiff has given his services to the defendant No.1 for a certain period of time. Therefore, it is right of the plaintiff to get experience certificate and relieving letter from the defendant.
27. Accordingly, the defendant No.1 is directed to supply the experience certificate and relieving letter to the plaintiff for the services provided by him to defendant No.1 from date of joining till date of relieving. Hence, the present issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Issue No.3:-Whether plaintiff is entitled to compensation towards mental agony and harassment? OPP
28. The onus to prove this issue is on the plaintiff. However, plaintiff has not placed on record any medical document or any other documentary evidence to prove that he suffered mental Sahil agony and harassment and moreover since the main issue No.1 Khurmi has already been decided against the plaintiff, therefore, the Digitally signed by Sahil Khurmi Date:
2024.06.06 CS SCJ No.2494/2019 Page No.16 of 17 16:31:25 +0530 present issue is also decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Issue No.4:-Whether no cause of action has accrued in favour of plaintiff? OPD
29. The onus to prove this issue is on the defendant. It has already been decided vide issue No.1 that no cause of action has accrued in favour of the plaintiff, entitling him to salary of two months as claimed by him. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff Issue no. 5:- RELIEF
30. In view of foregoing discussion, the present suit is partly decreed in the following terms:-
Defendant i.e. M/s Spectar Digi Services Pvt Ltd is directed to supply the experience certificate and relieving letter to the plaintiff for the services provided by him to defendant i.e. M/s Spectar Digi Services Pvt Ltd from the date of joining till the date of relieving.
31. No order as to costs.
32. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
33. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by Sahil
Announced in the open Sahil Khurmi
Date:
Khurmi 2024.06.06
court today on 06.06.2024 16:31:34
+0530
(SAHIL KHURMI)
Civil Judge-1, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CS SCJ No.2494/2019 Page No.17 of 17