Full Judgment Text
$~23.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 1323/2013 & I.A.14980/2013
% Date of decision: 30.10.2014
CAPT VIJENDER SINGH CHAUHAN ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr.M.B. Singh, Adv.
versus
M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LD ..... Defendant
Through: Mr.Vijay Nair and Mr. Rajat Joneja, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
G.S. SISTANI, J ( ORAL )
I.A.19830/2014
1. This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC
seeking partial decree on the admissions made by the defendant with
respect to payment of salary of three months in lieu of notice.
2. The plaintiff had initially filed the present suit under the provisions of
Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application for leave
to defend filed by the defendant was allowed by this Court by an order
dated 25.08.2014 when unconditional leave was granted to the defendant.
Mr. Singh, counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has claimed
various amounts including deficit salary, salary in lieu of notice, gratuity,
interest and charges for legal notice, the total being Rs.58,76,000/-.
3. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff on the letter of
appointment dated 28.03.2008. The first submission of Mr. Singh,
counsel for the plaintiff is that the letter of appointment is an admitted
document. As per this document either party was given the right to
terminate/leave service on three months’ notice or pay gross salary in lieu
CS(OS)1323/2013 Page 1 of 7
thereof. Counsel submits that the plaintiff had resigned from the
defendant company. A communication dated 10.09.2012 sent by email on
10.10.2012 at 6:00 p.m. is also relied upon wherein the plaintiff requested
the defendant to accept the resignation with effect from the date of
despatch of the letter. It was also communicated to the defendant that in
the alternate he would have no objection if his resignation is accepted
with immediate effect provided he is paid three months gross salary upto
09.01.2013 and other benefits accrued to him. It is the case of the
plaintiff that the resignation of the plaintiff was accepted on the very next
day i.e. 11.10.2012, the plaintiff was asked to return all the official
equipments, files and record and to obtain NOC from the department.
Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the acceptance of the resignation
letter would amount to an admission by the defendant as the defendant
decided to relieve the plaintiff of his duties on the very next day and, thus,
salary would have to be paid to the plaintiff for three months.
4. The second leg of arguments of the counsel for the plaintiff is that the
defendant has not disputed the claim and only vague denials have been
made in the written statement and thus a vague denial is no denial in the
eyes of law and on the basis of admissions so made a partial decree for a
salary of three months may be passed. Reliance is placed by counsel for
the plaintiff on AIR 1999 Supreme Court page 3381 more particularly
para 7, 8, 9 and 28. Reliance is also placed on 2001 Volume IV AD Delhi
page 471 paragraph 16. It is contended that the pleadings of the defendant
are completely evasive thus the plaintiff would be entitled to a decree on
admission.
5. Mr. Nair, counsel for defendant submits that the reading of letter of
appointment would show that either of the parties had the right to
terminate/leave the services after serving three months’ notice. It is the
CS(OS)1323/2013 Page 2 of 7
plaintiff who had decided to resign from the company and it was open for
the plaintiff either to give three months’ notice or to forego the three
months’ salary. On the converse, in case the defendant had decided to
terminate the services of the plaintiff, the defendant was required to give
three months’ notice or to pay three months’ salary to the plaintiff in case
the defendant desired to terminate the services of the plaintiff forthwith.
Mr. Nair, counsel for defendant, further contends that since the plaintiff
decided to resign, it was the plaintiff who had to continue working for
three months and it is not as if the defendant was required to pay the
plaintiff three months salary. He further submits that there is not a single
document on record by which the plaintiff was called upon to leave the
services forthwith or any commitment on the part of the defendant to pay
three months salary which was neither required nor the expectation of the
plaintiff which is evident upon reading of the letter of resignation which
gives details of the amounts due which includes arrears, short payments
and interest but there is no mention of three months’ salary in the letter of
resignation neither there is any mention of three months’ salary in lieu of
notice in the communication dated 21.10.2012 and 24.11.2012. There is
also no mention of three months’ salary in the notice dated 01.12.2012.
The plaintiff also did not claim this amount in the winding up petition
instituted against the defendant which was ultimately dismissed.
6. Reliance is placed by the defendant on the written statement to show that
specific denial has been made by the defendant with regard to three
months’ salary which is being sought by the plaintiff. In paragraph (4) of
the preliminary submissions it has been stated as under:
“4. It is submitted that the plaintiff is inter-alia staking his claim on
the basis of oral assurances allegedly given by the officials of
defendant company, however, it is specifically denied that Mr.V.K.
Oberoi, Vice President-Projects or any other official of the
CS(OS)1323/2013 Page 3 of 7
Company had ever made any assurance to the plaintiff, much less
any assurance that his alleged dues, benefits or interest @12% per
annum with salary of three months towards notice period as
stipulated in Clause 6 of the Appointment letter would be paid to
him. Even otherwise, without prejudice, it is denied that Mr. V.K.
Oberoi was ever authorised to give any assurance to the plaintiff.
In this regard, plaintiff’s letter dated 24.11.2012 may be referred to,
wherein the plaintiff has acknowledged the receipt of Rs.4,45,200/-
(Rupees Four Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Two Hundred Only),
which was given to the plaintiff pursuant to his resignation, vide a
pay order dated 02.11.2012 bearing 315362 drawn on Syndicate
bank, New Delhi. This amount was paid to the plaintiff in full and
final settlement of all his dues and claims. Hence, the suit of the
Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.”
7. Reliance is also placed on para (ix) at page 7 to show that the defendant
has categorically stated that no amount is due and payable except the full
and final settlement by which Rs.4,45,200/- was paid by the defendant to
plaintiff. In paragraph (ix) of the preliminary submissions it has been
stated as under:
“ix. On 17.10.2012, the plaintiff’s full and final settlement was
processed by the HR Department of the Defendant and the
computation for the same was done on 18.10.2012 by the Account
Section of the Defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff was also
communicated of the same through phone and the plaintiff was
asked to receive the amount of Rs.4,45,200/- (Rupees Four Lakhs
Forty Five Thousand and Two Hundred Only) towards his full and
final settlement. However, the Plaintiff again failed to turn up for
the same on the pretext that he was busy in some personal work and
will visit another day.”
8. Reliance is placed by Mr. Nair, counsel for defendant on Raj Kumar
Chawla vs. Lukas Indian Services, AIR 2006 Delhi 266 in support of his
argument that the admissions sought to be relied upon must be clear,
unambiguous and unconditional leave and it is not for the plaintiff to draw
an admission on the basis of inferences.
CS(OS)1323/2013 Page 4 of 7
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival
submissions. By an order dated 25.08.2014 of this Court unconditional
leave was granted to the defendant. The basic dispute between the parties
arose due to reduction of salary by the defendant. While it is the case of
the plaintiff that the salary of the plaintiff was reduced from Rs.2,08,329/-
to Rs.1,56,247/- unilaterally. The defence set up by defendant was that the
salary was reduced not to single out the plaintiff but on account of a
financial crunch being faced by the defendant company and salary was
reduced of all members of the similar cadre. Reliance was also placed by
the defendant on the fact that reduced salary was accepted by the plaintiff
without any protest or demur.
10. No doubt that the letter of appointment makes it clear that in case either of
the parties is to terminate/quit the services of the defendant, three months’
notice is required to be given or salary of three months to be paid. In the
present case, it is the plaintiff who had decided to resign and the plaintiff
has been unable to show that the defendant agreed to accept the
resignation and asked the plaintiff not to attend office or agreed to pay
salary for three months.
11. Reliance on letter dated 11.10.2012 by counsel for the plaintiff, in my
view is misplaced as the letter simply reads that the resignation has been
accepted and the plaintiff should return all official equipments, files and
records and also obtain NOC from the Department to enable the defendant
to settle full and final account. In my view and as explained by counsel
for defendant, this was the letter written in routine calling upon the
plaintiff to return all the official equipments and not that the defendant
agreed to pay three months salary to the plaintiff. The communication
dated 21.10.2012 and 24.11.2012, legal notice dated 01.12.2012 and the
fact that even in the winding up petition claim of three months’ salary was
CS(OS)1323/2013 Page 5 of 7
not raised would show that even as per the plaintiff’s understanding he
was not entitled to three months’ salary. As far as the admission in the
pleading is concerned, there is no quarrel to the proposition that a vague
denial is no denial in the eyes of the law. However, the paragraphs of
written statement extracted hereinabove would show that the defendant
did not make any admission with regard to the claim of three months’
salary in fact it is the stand of the defendant that only Rs.4,45,200/- was
due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff which account was
deficit in his account accepted by the plaintiff without prejudice to his
rights and contentions.
12. The law with regard to Order XII Rule 6 CPC is well settled. In the case
of Uttam Singh Duggal vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2000 SC
2740 the scope and ambit of Order XII Rule 6 CPC was explained in
detail. The relevant para reads as under:
“The Court essentially should look into the fact that all essential
ingredients of an admission are satisfied before such a decree is
passed in favour of any of the parties to the suit. Admission has to
be unambiguous, clear and unconditional and the law would not
permit admission by inference as it is a matter of fact. Admission of
a fact has to be clear from the record itself and cannot be left to the
interpretative determination by the Court, unless there was a
complete trial and such finding could be on the basis of cogent and
appropriate evidence on record.”
13. In order to take benefit of Order XII Rule 6 CPC the plaintiff must
establish beyond any element of doubt that the admission relied upon is
clear, unequivocal, unconditional and unambiguous. The descrition has
been vested in the Court to pass a decree only in case the Court is satisfied
about the admission being clear and unequivocal.
14. In my view the plaintiff has been unable to establish that the defendant
had admitted that they were liable to pay salary for a period of three
CS(OS)1323/2013 Page 6 of 7
months’ to the plaintiff. Accordingly, I find no merit in the application.
The same is dismissed.
CS(OS) 1323/2013
15. List the matter before Joint Registrar on 10.12.2014 for admission/denial
of documents.
16. List the matter before Court on 30.01.2015 for framing of issues. Parties
shall bring suggested issues to Court on the next date of hearing.
G.S.SISTANI, J
OCTOBER 30, 2014
ns
CS(OS)1323/2013 Page 7 of 7