The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cause of action for a suit and the scope of res judicata are crucial factors in determining the maintainability of a suit and the grounds for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)

I.A. 10179/2021 (of the defendant no.1 u/O-VII R-11 of CPC)

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the defendant no.1 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint on the following grounds:

i. The plaint does not disclose any cause of action.

ii. The suit is barred by law.

2. Notice in the present application was issued on 13th August, 2021. Pursuant to the said notice, a reply was filed on behalf of the plaintiff on 11th September, 2021. Thereafter, a rejoinder was filed on behalf of the defendant no.1 on 21st October, 2021.

3. In the plaint filed by the plaintiff, it has been pleaded that:

i. The plaintiff had joined the defendant no.1 on 1st January, 1995 as a Personal Assistant.

ii. On 30th April, 2017, the plaintiff was appointed as the Secretary (Designate) on the basis of selection done by the Search Committee appointed by the defendant no.1.

iii. On 23rd June, 2017, the term of the previous President of the defendant no.1 got over and the defendant no.2 was appointed as the next President.

iv. The defendant no.2 had personal animosity against the plaintiff.

v. On 29th July, 2017, an Office Order was issued by the defendant no.1 that appointment of the plaintiff as Secretary be kept in abeyance.

vi. On 8th August, 2017, the plaintiff received another notice from the defendant no.1 stating that the salary and perks of the plaintiff would be reversed and the excess amount paid to the plaintiff would be recovered.

vii. A Civil Suit No.1040/2017 was filed by the plaintiff before the Patiala House Courts, impugning the office order dated 29th July, 2017. viii. On 9th October, 2017, the plaintiff issued a resignation letter, which was accepted by the defendant no.1 on 10th October, 2017.

ix. On 11th October, 2017, the aforesaid suit was withdrawn by the plaintiff. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the aforesaid resignation was not voluntary and was forced upon the plaintiff by the defendants and therefore, amounts to illegal termination

4. Accordingly, the present suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking the following reliefs:

a) Pass a Judgment and Decree of Damages and Compensation of Rs.2,02,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore and Two Lakh Only) in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants, jointly and severally, alongwith pendelite and future interest @9% per annum, till the date of full realization of entire amount, for illegal termination of service of the Plaintiff by the Defendants; and/or

b) Pass a Judgment and Decree in favour of the Plaintiff for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Only) against the Defendants towards harassment and mental agony and Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Only) towards her Defamation on account of her illegal and arbitrary termination; and/or

c) Cost of the suit may be awarded in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants;

d) Any other order of further orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

5. Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant no.1, in support of the present application, has made the following submissions:

i. The plaintiff had voluntarily resigned from her service. There is nothing to suggest that the plaintiff was forced to resign.

ii. The plaintiff had withdrawn the first suit without seeking liberty to file a fresh suit. Therefore, the fresh suit, which is based on substantially the same pleadings, is barred.

iii. Even if it is assumed that the plaintiff was wrongfully terminated, in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in SS Shetty V. Bharat Nidhi Ltd., AIR 1958 SC 12, followed by this Court in SDU Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vipin Sharma, AIR 2017 Del 92 and G4S Security Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. V. Dhiraj Negi, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10739, the plaintiff can at best claim compensation for the notice period, which the plaintiff was entitled to under the terms of her employment,