- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 19 September 2018
- Bench
- Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
- Case no.
- RSA 140/2018
Judgment
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. SEPTEMBER 19, 2018 'pp'
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 19th September, 2018. + KLINTOZ PHARMACEUTICALS PVT LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Gautam Kumar, Adv. Versus RAVINDER SHANKAR MATHUR ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW CM No.38496/2018 (for exemption) & CM No.38497/2018 (exemption from filing complete Trial Court record). 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The applications stand disposed of. RSA 140/2018. 3. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree [dated 21st May, 2018 in RCA No.24/2013 (20202/2016) of the Court of District Judge (South-East)] partly allowing the First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the judgment and decree [dated 30th September, 2013 in Suit No.121/2013 of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge (South-East)]of dismissal of suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellant/defendant for recovery of Rs.49,185/- on account of dues of salary, bonus, leave encashment, refundable security amount along with interest. Resultantly, the First Appellate Court has passed a decree in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and against the appellant/defendant for recovery of Rs.35,220/- with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 1st November, 2008 till the date of payment. 4. The counsel for the appellant/defendant has been heard. 5. The counsel for the appellant/defendant has argued, (i) that the respondent/plaintiff joined the employment of the appellant/defendant in the capacity of a manager in the month of November, 2007; (ii) the respondent/plaintiff resigned from the said employment on 31st October, 2008; (iii) that it was a term of employment of the respondent/plaintiff, that his employment was terminable by a two months notice from either side; (iv) that the respondent/plaintiff did not serve two month notice period and the appellant/defendant, out of the dues of the respondent/plaintiff, was entitled to deduct two months salary; (v) that holding so, the suit was dismissed; and, (vi) that the First Appellate Court has however partly allowed the appeal and passed a decree for recovery of monies against the appellant/defendant. 6. I have enquired from the counsel for the appellant/defendant, that the appellant/defendant having approached this Court in Second Appellate jurisdiction, what is the substantial question of law which the appeal raises. 7. The counsel for the appellant/defendant is unable to state the same. The judgments of the Suit Court and the First Appellate Court and copies of the Suit Court record filed along with the memorandum of appeal have been perused. 9. The admitted position is, that the letter dated 26th October, 2007 of appellant/defendant, of appointment of the respondent/plaintiff, merely provides as under:- "Sub: Offer Letter. Dear Mr. Mathur, With reference to our discussion, we are pleased to inform you that you have been offered the post of Business Development Manager in the organisation with effect from 26th October, 2007. Terms and conditions will remain as discussed and agreed upon. The detailed offer letter mentioning your salary, expenses and other prerequisites will follow after we receive your intimation of joining in the Office. Please send your acceptance and join your duty accordingly. Yours sincerely. Yours faithfully For Klintoz Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd." 10. The aforesaid letter was signed by the respondent/plaintiff under the endorsement "I have read, understood and accepted the terms and conditions of the appointment". 11. It was the case of the appellant/defendant that the terms and conditions of appointment are contained in a separate document titled "Terms and conditions of TGE appointment for the post of Business Development Manager" and clause 8 whereof titled "Termination of Service/Resignation from the company" inter alia provided as under:- "Similarly the employee only after the con
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.