Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 2645
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
M/s. Chaitanya Builders & Leasing Pvt. Ltd. - Plaintiff
Versus
Mrs. Vijaya Padmanaban - Defendant
C.S. NO. 1055 OF 2009
Decided On : 17-08-2016
For the Plaintiff : Mr. S. Ramesh
For the Defendant : Mr. G. Kalyan for M/s. Surana & Surana
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for substantial evidence to prove misconduct and negligence in an employment dispute.
Headnote:
Misconduct - Employment Dispute - [Issue Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11] - The court discussed the defendant's alleged misconduct as a Senior Technical Manager, including unauthorized alterations to a flat, mismanagement of projects, and excessive expenditure. The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claims, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a construction company, claimed damages of Rs. 50,00,000 from the defendant, a former employee, for alleged misconduct and negligence in project management. The defendant denied the allegations and counterclaimed for dismissal of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide substantial evidence to support the allegations of misconduct and negligence against the defendant. The court dismissed the suit due to lack of evidence.
Issues: The issues included the defendant's request for a concessional flat, alleged losses incurred by the plaintiff, and breach of employment contract terms. The court analyzed each issue and found in favor of the defendant due to lack of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of substantial evidence to prove the defendant's misconduct and negligence, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the suit due to the plaintiff's failure to substantiate the claims against the defendant.
The suit is filed by the plaintiff claiming a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) in respect of an alleged damage with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of plaint.
2. The plaintiff is one of the leading construction company in the field for more than two decades and had executed several prestigious projects. The defendant was employed with the plaintiff from 16.04.2001. As the defendant did not meet the expectations of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had expressed displeasure about her performance. Hence, she resigned from the services in the year 2002 and took up a job in another company. Subsequently, during the year 2004, when the plaintiff company had announced yearly increments, incentives etc., based on performance, the defendant again rejoined on 01.12.2004 and assured to perform well.
2.1. As the defendant was already known to the plaintiff, the plaintiff agreed to induct her in the company as Technical Manager. After re-appointment, the defendant was assigned with certain responsibilities. Subsequently, the defendant expressed her desire to purchase a flat in one of the projects in which she was in-charge and requested the plaintiff's Management to consider allotting a flat at a concessional rate. The plaintiff also in order to encourage its employee, agreed to allot a flat to the defendant in the project known as “NEST” which was being looked after by the defendant at that point of time. It was made clear to the defendant that the flat was allotted to her for a lesser price only in view of the employment of the defendant with the plaintiff, which would be part of the pay structure and package, otherwise, she would not be entitled for such a price. The defendant also agreed for the said terms and paid an initial advance. Despite the assurance given by the defendant that she would take care of the progress and development of the said project, she had not lived up to the commitment.
2.2. It was alleged by the plaintiff that she did not maintain the accounts properly and there were numerous lapses on her part. When the plaintiff questioned about the same, the defendant had come up with certain issues including the problems in her domestic front. The lapses on the part of the defendant had resulted in considerable loss to the plaintiff and when the plaintiff questioned about the same, the defendant abstained from attending office and also did not attend the phone calls. As the defendant was in-charge of two on-going projects, the plaintiff had made request to her to continue to complete the same before quitting.
2.3. The plaintiff further alleged that in the Besant Nagar Project, the defendant had caused a loss of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only). In another case, a work order was issued for Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only), but billing value was many times over the original value and the bills were certified by the defendant for payment. It is further alleged that the defendant had placed orders for excess materials and in some cases, double or triple orders were made, which resulted in excess stocking of materials, causing unnecessary financial loss to the company.
2.4. It is the further allegation of the plaintiff that the defendant had misused her position as in-charge of the project and got various additional works and alterations done to her flat, which was allotted to her earlier. Having caused severe damages and loss to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was not willing to extend the concession given to her and withdrew the offer given to the defendant initially. The plaintiff had engaged a team of internal auditors to verify the accounts and records relating to two projects handled by the defendant. Even before that, the defendant wanted the allotment of flat to continue and had refused to receive the money returned to her. As the flat was not handed over to her, the defendant initiated proceedings before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking for a d
