Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh)
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Ms Sarita Singh – Appellant
Versus
M/s Shree Infosoft Private Limited – Respondent
Civil Appeal No.346 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 32174 of 2018)
Decided on : 12-01-2022
(A) Service Law – Deputation – Deputation has a definite connotation in law – A deputation would also involve a third party - borrowing employer who discharges specific rights and obligations towards employee and lending employer – Deputation involves a tripartite consensual agreement between lending employer, borrowing employer and employee – Specific rights and obligations would bind parties and govern their conduct. (Para 11)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 37 Rule 1 – Money suit – Recovery of money spent by ex-employee on overseas tour – Respondent as a claimant and plaintiff had to discharge initial burden of establishing that appellant was sent on deputation overseas – While terms and conditions of employment have been reduced to writing, there is no valid evidence on the basis of which it can be deduced that appellant was sent on deputation overseas – Appellant was represented in proceedings in suit by her spouse as holder of a power of attorney – That did not obviate legal requirement that burden must be discharged by plaintiff of establishing its own case – There is no material evidence on the record to indicate that appellant was sent on deputation – A transient business visit without any written agreement detailing terms of deputation will not qualify as a deputation unless respondent were to lead cogent evidence to indicate that appellant was seconded to work overseas on deputation – This aspect of case has completely been ignored by all three courts below – Claim was not substantiated having regard to plain terms of contract – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside and suit for recovery dismissed with cost of Rs 1 lakh. (Paras 11, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 1 August 2018 of a Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in RSA No 3369 of 2018 (O&M). Appellant is a software developer who joined the services of respondent on 15th November 2012. Controversy in the present case turns upon the construction of clause II(5) in the offer of appointment which formed the basis of the contract of employment.
Findings of Court:
Appellant has been subjected to needless harassment and drawn into a vortex of litigation. She had concerns about the conditions at the workplace. When she complained and resigned, she has been met with a reprisal of being embroiled in a suit for recovery. Courts must send a strong message that such things shall not come to pass and will not be tolerated by the legal system.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 1 August 2018 of a Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in RSA No 3369 of 2018 (O&M).
3. The appellant is a software developer who joined the services of the respondent on 15 November 2012. The respondent is a company based in Gurgaon and engages in the business of software development. As a software developer, the appellant was employed on an annual package of Rs 13,50,400. The terms of employment were contained in a letter of offer dated 15 November 2012. The conditions of employment included the following stipulation:
While on and or return to India from overseas deputation, it is essential that you serve SHREE INFOSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED for a period as stated under, as applicable:
| Deputation Period | Required months of service on and or return from overseas deputation as applicable |
| 0 days to 30 days | 3 months from the date of deputation/return |
| 31 days to 90 days | 6 months from the date of deputation/return |
| More than 90 days | 12 months from the date of deputation/return |
4. The appellant was initially sent for a meeting to the US on 22 August 2013 for a period of one week. The appellant was provided with a ticket to facilitate her travel. Other expenses incidental to the visit were borne by the employer. The duration of the visit was subsequently extended till 20 September 2013. The appellant returned to India and reported for work on 21 September 2013. On her return, the appellant was appointed as a Senior Project Manager on 27 September 2013 with a revised compensation package of Rs 16 lakhs per annum.
5. Upon her return from the US, the appellant worked with the respondent from 21 September 2013 until 12 December 2013, for a period of eighty-two days. Following a change in management, the appellant faced several issues in regard to the treatment which was being meted out to her. By a letter dated 12 December 2013, the appellant resigned from service. On 14 December 2013, the appellant was informed that her resignation was accepted and that the Human Resources department would facilitate the exit process. On 18 December 2013, the appellant addressed an email putting up her grievances and to inquire whether further formalities would have to be completed. The appellant was informed on 18 December 2013 by an email that her request for being immediately relieved had been accepted by the Management.
6. On 22 May 2014, an advocate’s notice was issued to the appellant calling upon the appellant to pay an amount of Rs 5,70,753 together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 12 December 2013, which included the amount which was spent by the respondent on her “overseas deputation and salary for the notice period”. The appellant responded by an advocate’s reply on 3 June 2014.
7. The respondent instituted a suit in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon for the recovery of a sum of Rs 5,70,753 together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The appellant con
SupremeToday
The central legal point established in the judgment is the employer's inherent power to depute employees to meet specific exigencies, the distinction between deputation and transfer, and the interpre....
In case of 'appointment on deputation', employer cannot claim employee has no right to continue till completion of deputation - Director's decision not to extend deputation must be based on evaluatio....
Reduction in Foreign Allowance must adhere to the terms and conditions of deputation, and any deviation from such terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties is not permissible.
![GO-004293N Shri Suryawanshi Pandurang Sayaji, Son of Late Sayaji Pandurang Suryawanshi VS Union of India, represented by Joint Secretary (BR), Ministry of Defence [earlier designated as Secretary (BRDB)], Room No. 418, “B” Wing, 4th Floor, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi - 2022 Supreme(Gau) 278](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Gauhati_3.png)
Point of Law : deputation can be aptly described as an assignment of an employee of one Department or cadre or even an Organisation, to another Department or cadre or Organisation and the necessity f....
The borrowing organization is responsible for disbursing salary arrears during an employee's foreign deputation, not the parent department.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
