Back
2021 Supreme(Del) 2320
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
Airlines Allied Services Limited - Appellant
Versus
Ashok Kumar Malhotra - Respondent
R.F.A. No. 433 of 2016; C.M. No. 24214 of 2016
Decided On : 06-04-2021
Abhinav Agnihotri, Advocate, Sanjeev Sahay, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the terms of the employment agreement and subsequent amendments, as well as the consideration of fairness and obligations in the context of a 'State' entity.
Headnote:
FTEA - Recovery of Dues - Article VII, Pay and Allowances - Clause 7.01.02 - Clause 1.01 - MoU - Freighter Allowance - Other Payment
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of unpaid salary and allowances after the defendant terminated his services. The defendant contended that the plaintiff was unfit to fly and therefore not entitled to payment. The trial court framed issues and passed a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, decreeing the suit for the claimed amount with interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to the Freighter Allowance for certain months and a specific amount under the 'Other Payment' head, but not the full amount claimed. The court also upheld the refund of a specific amount to the plaintiff.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover the unpaid salary and allowances from the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to certain allowances and payments based on the terms of the Fixed Term Employment Agreement (FTEA) and subsequent amendments. The court also considered the fairness of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and the defendant's obligation to act fairly as a 'State' entity.
Final Decision: The court partially allowed the appeal, modifying the judgment to grant the plaintiff the Freighter Allowance for certain months and a specific amount under the 'Other Payment' head, while upholding the refund of a specific amount to the plaintiff.
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. - This is an appeal preferred by the appellant / defendants under Order XLI read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 impugning the judgment dated March 1, 2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Saket Courts, in the suit bearing No. 241/15, with the following prayers:
"In view of the above circumstances, the Appellant humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to;
(a) allow the present appeal and set aside the Judgment dated 01.03.2016 passed by Shri Ajay Pandey, Ld. ADJ in Suit No. 241/2015;
b) pass such other and further order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. For the sake of convenience the appellant and the respondent in the present appeal, shall hereinafter be referred to as defendant and plaintiff respectively. The facts in brief are as follows. The plaintiff joined the services of the defendant on July 01, 2004 for a period of one year till June 30, 2005 and a Fixed Term Agreement dated July 01, 2004 ("FTEA" for short) to this extent was executed between them. The FTEA also provided the details of pay, allowances and benefits payable to the plaintiff including Flight Related Allowances ("FRA", for short) comprising of flying allowances, and executive allowances. Article VII of the FTEA, which deals with the pay and allowances was amended vide letter of agreement/amendment dated August 04, 2005 w.e.f. October 01, 2004. Subsequently, period of service of the plaintiff was extended from July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006 and thereafter vide letter of extension / amendment of agreement, dated June 20, 2006, the FTEA was extended for a further period of commencing from July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2011. Article VII of the FTEA was revised w.e.f. August 01, 2006 and further revised w.e.f. February 14, 2008 through a letter of agreement/ amendment executed on February 14, 2008.
3. It was the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that his services were terminated by the defendant vide termination notice dated January 12, 2010 against the terms of contract of service executed between the parties and that the defendant did not pay the complete salary and allowances due to the plaintiff w.e.f. September, 2009 to January 12, 2010. Thus, the suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.16,82,712/- along with pendente lite interest and future interest and litigation expenses towards the alleged dues of salary and allowances not paid by the defendant.
4. The claim of the plaintiff before the Trial Court as noted from the Plaint is as follows:
"The claim of the plaintiff due from the defendants is as follows:
MONTH | TO BE PAID | PAID | DUE |
Sept 2009 flying allows Exec allows. Freighter allows. | Rs.290500 Rs. 49000 Rs. 30000 | Rs. 67783 Rs. 11433 Paid | Rs.222717 Rs. 37567 Nil |
Oct.2009 flying allows Exec allows. Freighter allows | Rs.290500 Rs. 49000 Rs. 30000 | Not Paid Not Paid Paid | Rs.290500 Rs. 49000 Nil |
Nov.2009 flying allows Exec allows. Freighter allows. | Rs.290500 Rs. 49000 Rs. 30000 | Not Paid Not Paid Not Paid | Rs.290500 Rs. 49000 Rs. 30000 |
Dec.2009 flying allows Exec allows. Freighter allows | Rs.290500 Rs. 49000 Rs. 30000 | Not Paid Not Paid Not Paid | Rs.290500 Rs. 49000 Rs. 30000 |
Jan.2010 flying allows Exec allows. Freighter allows. | Rs.116200 Rs. 19600 Rs. 12000 | Rs.116200 Rs. 19600 Rs. 12000 | Rs.116200 Rs. 19600 Rs. 12000 |
Total | Rs. 1535800 | Rs.79216 | Rs. 1486584 |
It is pertinent to mentioned here that in the month of September and October 2009 the defendants paid the fixed freighter allowance, but arbitrarily stopped paying the freighter allowance and other allowances from September 2009 to till January 2010 without any stipulated rule in the service contract/letter of agreement effective from 14-02- 2008 or assigning any valid reason whatsoever despite several reminders.
In 5 days IRL.R 4 days |
|
Refresher + 39 days PL =39 |
|
Day @4500/per day = | Rs. 17550 |
