The voluntary nature of a settlement agreement and the legal implications of an unconditional and unqualified resignation.

1. The appellant/plaintiff has assailed the judgment dated 27.09.2016 passed by the learned trial court in a suit for recovery of Rs.3,27,048/-instituted by him against his employer, the respondent/defendant towards the dues of incentive, notice pay and arrears of salary alongwith interest. By the impugned judgment, the trial court has partly allowed the appellant’s suit by passing a decree in his favour to the tune of Rs.1,58,132/-alongwith interest @24% per annum with effect from 30.11.2013 to 27.09.2016 and had granted future interest @ 6% per annum.

2. Before examining the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant, it is considered necessary to recapitulate the facts of the case. The version of the appellant/plaintiff as set out in the plaint, is that he was employed with the respondent/defendant with effect from April, 2012 to April, 2013; he was forced to resign from the defendant/company by sending an e-mail dated 06.05.2013, which was accepted on 07.05.2013. At the time of tendering his resignation, an amount of Rs.34,534/-was due to the plaintiff from the defendant towards incentive for the business generated by him from Mahinder Rally, Rs.17,231/-for the business generated from Panasonic Experience Centre and Rs.25,158/-for the business generated from Honda Motors. Claiming that he was forced to resign by the respondent/defendant, the appellant/plaintiff had demanded his salary for the month of April, 2013 for the notice period, for being made to tender an immediate resignation. On the defendant failing to pay any amount, the appellant/plaintiff had issued a legal notice dated 31.12.2013, to which a reply was given by the respondent/defendant on 17.01.2014, denying inter alia all the allegations levelled against them. In this background, the appellant/plaintiff had instituted the suit on 22.02.2014.

3. After the summons were served on the respondent/defendant, it had filed a written statement taking several preliminary objections and questioning the maintainability of the suit. On merits, it was stated that the appellant/plaintiff had himself opted to tender his resignation without furnishing any reason and therefore, he was liable to pay the notice period salary. It was also stated that the appellant/plaintiff had failed to pay the amount received by him for and on behalf of the respondent/defendant from M/s Panasonic Experience Centre alongwith laptops, pen drive etc. belonging to the respondent/defendant. It was alleged that the appellant/plaintiff had handed over the payment received from M/s Panasonic Experience Centre to the respondent/defendant only after a legal notice dated 22.11.2013 was issued to him, whereafter the parties had arrived at a settlement that reduced into writing on 29.11.2013. Under the settlement, the appellant/plaintiff agreed to pay a sum of Rs.4,25,937/-to the respondent/defendant in full and final settlement. The respondent/defendant asserted in the written statement that as the appellant/plaintiff was fully conscious of having wrongfully withheld a sum of Rs.4,25,937/-received by him from M/s Panasonic Experience Centre for and on their behalf and the company was planning to initiate civil/criminal proceedings against him, so as to avoid any such litigation, he had voluntarily arrived at a settlement with the respondent/defendant and had handed over the said amount.

4. After the pleadings in the suit were completed and admission/denial of documents was conducted, the following seven issues were framed on 14.09.2015:-

“1. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD

2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff withheld the payment received from M/s Panasonic Digital Branding at Reliance Store, if so, its effect? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff had resigned from the job and withheld the belongings of defendant, if so, its effect? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of am