Salary reduction accepted without written agreement for repayment constitutes restructuring, not deferred salary.

The Appellant/Plaintiff joined the Respondent Company on 28.07.1992 and resigned as Vice President (Technology) on 02.03.2005

He alleged that during the FY 2002-03, the Company deferred a portion of employee salaries (30% for his bracket) due to financial difficulties, promising repayment by 01.04.2003 along with a one-month "compensation bonus"

He sued for recovery of ₹16,49,713, including deferred salary, bonus, transfer allowance (for a 2001 move from New York to Delhi), and gratuity

The Respondent contended the salary reduction was a permanent "restructuring" rather than a "deferment" and that no repayment agreement existed

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 28.03.2024, leading to this appeal

1. Whether the reduction in the Appellant's salary during FY 2002-03 constituted a "deferment" or a "restructuring" of remuneration

2. Whether the Appellant was entitled to a one-month gross salary as a compensation bonus

3. Whether the claim for transfer allowance was barred by limitation and successfully proved

4. Whether the Appellant had established five years of continuous service for entitlement to gratuity

The court applied Section 96 and Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regarding the appellate jurisdiction

For the evidentiary claims, it applied Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, requiring a certificate for the admissibility of electronic evidence (emails)

It referenced Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which mandates five years of continuous service for gratuity eligibility

It further relied on the doctrine of estoppel evidenced by the Plaintiff’s conduct and the precedent in Aithent Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Archana Verma (RFA 608/2014), which held that similar salary cuts in the same company were restructurings, not deferments

The Court observed that the Appellant failed to produce any written agreement or Board Resolution proving that the salary reduction was a deferment to be repaid later

His conduct—continuing employment for two years after the alleged repayment date (01.04.2003) without raising a written demand—indicated there was no contractual obligation for repayment

The emails relied upon by the Appellant discussed restoration of salary levels but did not confirm the accumulation of arrears

Regarding transfer allowance, the claim was based on emails from 2004 for an event in 2001; these were neither proved under Section 65B of the Evidence Act nor filed within the statutory limitation period

While the Court set aside the Trial Court's finding on gratuity—noting that the Company's own Experience Certificate (Ex. P-3) admitted service from 1992 to 2005—it held that the recovery of gratuity must be adjudicated by the competent authority under the specific mechanism provided by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972

Regarding gratuity, the Court set aside the Trial Court's finding of lack of continuous service but declined to award the sum directly; instead, it granted the Appellant liberty to approach the competent forum under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, leaving all questions of computation and limitation open for that forum