SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Del) 2257

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
Klintoz Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Ravinder Shankar Mathur - Respondent
RSA No. 140 of 2018
Decided On : 19-09-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Adv.

The central legal point established in the judgment is that deduction from admitted dues, without proving any loss or damage, cannot be effected. The court emphasized the importance of evidence in supporting the validity of contractual terms and conditions.

Headnote:

Employment Contract - Termination of Service - Recovery of Dues - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 100 - Section 96 - Suit No.121/2013 - RCA No.24/2013 - RSA 140/2018

Fact of the Case:

The case involves a dispute over the recovery of dues of salary, bonus, leave encashment, and refundable security amount along with interest by the respondent/plaintiff from the appellant/defendant. The appellant/defendant argued that the respondent/plaintiff did not serve the required notice period and was liable for deduction of two months' salary. The First Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and passed a decree for recovery of monies against the appellant/defendant.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the document containing the terms and conditions of the respondent/plaintiff's appointment did not bear his signature, date, or evidence of communication. The court also noted that the appellant/defendant failed to prove that the document formed part of the appointment letter. The court held that the appellant/defendant was not entitled to deduct notice period salary and dismissed the appeal.

Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the terms and conditions of the employment contract, the requirement of serving a notice period, and the entitlement of the appellant/defendant to deduct notice period salary.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of evidence supporting the validity and communication of the terms and conditions of the employment contract. The court also cited legal principles that prohibit deduction from admitted dues without proving any loss or damage.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

JUDGMENT :

CM No.38496/2018 (for exemption) & CM No.38497/2018 (exemption from filing complete Trial Court record).

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The applications stand disposed of.

RSA 140/2018.

3. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree [dated 21st May, 2018 in RCA No.24/2013 (20202/2016) of the Court of District Judge (South-East)] partly allowing the First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the judgment and decree [dated 30th September, 2013 in Suit No.121/2013 of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge (South-East)]of dismissal of suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellant/defendant for recovery of Rs.49,185/- on account of dues of salary, bonus, leave encashment, refundable security amount along with interest. Resultantly, the First Appellate Court has passed a decree in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and against the appellant/defendant for recovery of Rs.35,220/- with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 1st November, 2008 till the date of payment.

4. The counsel for the appellant/defendant has been heard.

5. The counsel for the appellant/defendant has argued, (i) that the respondent/plaintiff joined the employment of the appellant/defendant in the capacity of a manager in the month of November, 2007; (ii) the respondent/plaintiff resigned from the said employment on 31st October, 2008; (iii) that it was a term of employment of the respondent/plaintiff, that his employment was terminable by a two months notice from either side; (iv) that the respondent/plaintiff did not serve two month notice period and the appellant/defendant, out of the dues of the respondent/plaintiff, was entitled to deduct two months salary; (v) that holding so, the suit was dismissed; and, (vi) that the First Appellate Court has however partly allowed the appeal and passed a decree for recovery of monies against the appellant/defendant.

6. I have enquired from the counsel for the appellant/defendant, that the appellant/defendant having approached this Court in Second Appellate jurisdiction, what is the substantial question of law which the appeal raises.

7. The counsel for the appellant/defendant is unable to state the same.

8 The judgments of the Suit Court and the First Appellate Court and copies of the Suit Court record filed along with the memorandum of appeal have been perused.

9. The admitted position is, that the letter dated 26th October, 2007 of appellant/defendant, of appointment of the respondent/plaintiff, merely provides as under:-

“Sub: Offer Letter.

Dear Mr. Mathur,

With reference to our discussion, we are pleased to inform you that you have been offered the post of Business Development Manager in the organisation with effect from 26th October, 2007.

Terms and conditions will remain as discussed and agreed upon. The detailed offer letter mentioning your salary, expenses and other prerequisites will follow after we receive your intimation of joining in the Office.

Please send your acceptance and join your duty accordingly.

Yours sincerely.

Yours faithfully

For Klintoz Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.”

10. The aforesaid letter was signed by the respondent/plaintiff under the endorsement “I have read, understood and accepted the terms and conditions of the appointment”.

11. It was the case of the appellant/defendant that the terms and conditions of appointment are contained in a separate document titled “Terms and conditions of TGE appointment for the post of Business Development Manager” and clause 8 whereof titled “Termination of Service/Resignation from the company” inter alia provided as under:-

“Similarly the employee only after the confirmation of services shall be at liberty to resign from the services of the company after giving minimum two month’s prior notice or amount equivalent to two month’s of last drawn salary in lien thereof. If the employee resigns and leaves without giving two month’s prior notice and w











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top