Case Details

Joginder Pal Kochar Vs M/S Harig India Ltd.

Case Details

casenoCase TypeCS
casenoFiling Number37423/2016
casenoRegistration Number59033/2016
caseno Filing Date10-04-2003
hearingRegistration Date10-04-2003
hearingFirst Hearing Date25th October 2016
dateDecision Date31st July 2019
casestatusCase StatusCase Disposed
courtCourt Number and Judge75-Additional District Judge(Adj);
natureNature of DisposalContested--Dismissed;

Petitioners & Respondents

contactsPetitioner

Joginder Pal Kochar, ;

;

contacts Respondent Name

M/S Harig India Ltd.;

Order Details

orderdate Order Date25-10-2016 documents

IN THE COURT OF MS.VEENA RANI :ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,NEW DELHI No. 59033 of 16 Title: Joginder Pal Kochar Vs. M/s Harig India Ltd and ors. 25.10.2016 Present: Sh. S.Rajappa, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Divya Bhalla, Sh. Bhavitt K Rastogi and Sh. Munindra Dwivedi, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1,3,4 and 5. At joint request, matter is adjourned for arguments on the application under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC for 10.01.2017. (VEENA RANI) Addl. District Judge -04 PHC, New Delhi 25.10.2016

orderdate Order Date10-01-2017 documents

IN THE COURT OF MS.VEENA RANI :ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,NEW DELHI No. 59033 of 2016 Title: Joginder Pal Kochar Vs. M/s Hrig India. 10.01.2017 Present: Sh. Ram Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff with plaintiff. Sh. Bhavitt K. Rastogi, Ld. Proxy Counsel for the defendant. Adjournment sought on behalf of the defendant on the ground that main counsel is not available today. Not opposed. Put up for arguments on the pending application on 15.02.2017. ( VEENA RANI ) Additional District Judge-04 PHC, New Delhi/10-01-2017

orderdate Order Date12-04-2017 documents

IN THE COURT OF MS.VEENA RANI :ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,NEW DELHI No. 59033/16 Title: Joginder Pal Kochar Vs. M/s Harig India. 12-04-2017 Ld. PO is on half day leave. Present : Sh. S.Rajappa and Sh. Ram Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Bhavitt K Rastogi, Ld. Counsel for the defendants. As per directions of Ld. PO Put up on 24.05.2017 for purpose fixed/further proceedings. (Asstt. Ahlmad) 12.04.2017

orderdate Order Date24-05-2017 documents

IN THE COURT OF MS.VEENA RANI :ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,NEW DELHI No.59033/16 Title: Joginder Pal Kochar Vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. 24-05-2017 Present: Sh. S. Rajappa Advocate along with Sh. Ram Gupta Advocate for plaintiff. Sh. Bhavitt K. Rastogi, proxy counsel for defendant. Adjournment sought on behalf of the defendant on the ground that main counsel is not available today. Adjournment is not opposed. Put up for argument on the pending application u/o 8 rule 1A(3) CPC on 16-08- 2017. ( VEENA RANI ) Additional District Judge-04 PHC, New Delhi/ Judge Code : DL0271 Date:24-05-2017

orderdate Order Date16-08-2017 documents

IN THE COURT OF MS.VEENA RANI :ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI CS No. 59033 of 16 Title : Joginder Pal Kochar Vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. 16-08-2017 Present : Plaintiff in person. Sh. Bhavitt K Rastogi, Ld. Counsel for the defendant. Adjournment sought by the plaintiff on the ground that main counsel is not available today. Not opposed. Put up for arguments on pending application on 11.10.2017. ( VEENA RANI ) Additional District Judge-04 Judge Code : DL0271 PHC, New Delhi/16.08.2017

orderdate Order Date11-10-2017 documents

IN THE COURT OF MS.VEENA RANI :ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI CS No. 59033 of 16 Title : Joginder Pal Kochar Vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. 11-10-2017 Present : Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. Ld. Proxy Counsel for the defendant. Adjournment sought by the proxy counsel for the defendant on the ground that main counsel is not available today. Not opposed. Put up for arguments on pending applications on 10.01.2018. ( VEENA RANI ) Additional District Judge-04 Judge Code : DL0271 PHC, New Delhi/11.10.2017

orderdate Order Date10-01-2018 documents

IN THE COURT OF SH.CHANDRA SHEKHAR :ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI CS No. 59033 of 16 Title : Joginder Pal Kochar Vs. Harig India Ltd. And ors. 10-01-2018 Present : Sh. S.Rajaapa and Sh. Ram Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. M.Diwedi, Ld. Counsel for the defendant. I have heard the submissions of both the parties on application under Order 8 rule 1 A (3) CPC of the defendant. Ld. Counsels have relied upon some judgment. Copy of the same are taken on record. Put up for order on 15.02.2018. ( CHANDRA SHEKHAR ) Additional District Judge-04 Judge Code : DL003 PHC, New Delhi/10.01.2018

orderdate Order Date15-02-2018 documents

IN THE COURT OF SH.CHANDRA SHEKHAR :ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI CS No. 59033 of 2016 Title : Joginder Pal Kochar vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. 15.02.2018 Present : None. It is already 5 p.m. No time left for dictating orders. Put up for perusal of record, clarification, if any and passing order on 27.03.2018. ( CHANDRA SHEKHAR ) Additional District Judge-04 Judge Code : DL0003 PHC, New Delhi/15.02.2018

orderdate Order Date27-03-2018 documents

IN THE COURT OF SH.CHANDRA SHEKHAR :ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI CS No. 59033 of 16 Title : Joginder Pal Kochar Vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. 27-03-2018 Present : None. It is already 5 p.m, no time left for dictating order. Put up for perusal of record, clarification, if any and passing order on application under order 8 rule 1 A (3) CPC on 24.04.2018. ( CHANDRA SHEKHAR ) Additional District Judge-04 Judge Code : DL0003 PHC, New Delhi/27.03.2018

orderdate Order Date24-04-2018 documents

IN THE COURT OF SH.CHANDRA SHEKHAR :ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI CS No. 59033 of 2016 Title : Joginder Pal Kochar Vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. 24.04.2018 Present : None. Today passing order on the pending application under order 8 rule 1 A (3) CPC filed on behalf of defendant no.4 is not possible due to lengthy arguments taken place on an application under order 39 rule 2 A r/w Section 151 CPC filed in Trade Mark case titled as 'Sameer Gaur Vs. Top Shoppe and anr.' and 21 fresh files of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996 have been received on assignment and the fact that one regular PA is on long leave and no substitute has been provided despite request. Put up for perusal of record, clarification, if any and passing order on 31.05.2018. ( CHANDRA SHEKHAR ) Additional District Judge-04 Judge Code : DL0003 PHC, New Delhi/24.04.2018

orderdate Order Date31-05-2018 documents

CS No.: 59033/16 Joginder Pal Kochar v. M/s. Harig India Ltd. 31.05.2018 Present: None for the parties. No time is left for passing order due to hearing of lengthy  arguments   in   Trademark   case   no.   150/17   titled   as   Abdul   Nasir   v.  Abdullah Sheikh therefore, put up for order on 21.08.2018.          (CHANDRA SHEKHAR)  Additional District Judge­04 Judge Code: DL0003         PHC/New Delhi/31.05.2018

orderdate Order Date21-08-2018 documents

CS No.: 59033/16 Joginder Pal Kochar v. M/s. Harig India Ltd. 21.08.2018 Present: None for the parties. Today  no   time   is   left   for  passing  order   in   this   case  due   to  hearing   lengthy   arguments   in   TM   no.   125/18   titled   as   WD­40  Manufacturing Co. v. AIPL Marketing Pvt. Ltd.  Put up for orders on 14.09.2018.          (CHANDRA SHEKHAR)  Additional District Judge­04 Judge Code: DL0003         PHC/New Delhi/21.08.2018

orderdate Order Date16-10-2018 documents

CS No.: 59033/16/16 Joginder Pal Kochar v. M/s. Harig India Ltd. 16.10.2018 Present: None for the plaintiff. Today passing order is not possible as no time is left due to  hearing of lengthy arguments in TM No. 120/18 titled as EMAAR MGF  Land Ltd. v. EMAAR Impex Pvt. Ltd.  Put up for order on 14.12.2018.          (CHANDRA SHEKHAR)  Additional District Judge­04 Judge Code: DL0003         PHC/New Delhi/16.10.2018

orderdate Order Date14-12-2018 documents

CS No.: 59033/166 Joginder Pal Kochar v. M/s. Harig India Ltd. 14.12.2018 Present: Ld. Counsel Sh. Ram Gupta for the plaintiff. Today passing of order is not possible as no time is left due  to   heavy   causelist   and   arguments   addressed   in   fresh   assigned   cases  therefore, put up for orders on 29.01.2019.          (CHANDRA SHEKHAR)  Additional District Judge­04 Judge Code: DL0003         PHC/New Delhi/14.12.2018

orderdate Order Date27-03-2019 documents

CS No.: 59033/16 Joginder Pal Kochar v. M/s. Harig India Ltd. 27.03.2019 Present: Ld. Counsel Sh. Ram Gupta for the plaintiff. None for the defendants. The matter pertains to more than ten years old.  Ld. Counsel  for the plaintiff has argued on the application of defendants. In between  Ld. Counsel for defendants are at liberty to file written submissions/to  argue orally. Re­list the matter for orders on 31.03.2019.          (RAVINDR BEDI)  Additional District Judge­04 PHC/New Delhi/27.03.2019

orderdate Order Date01-04-2019 documents

CS No. 59033 of 2016 Title : Joginder Pal Kochar Vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. . 01.04.2019. File taken up today as 31.03.2019 was Sunday. Present : None. Relist the matter for orders on 04.04.2019 at 4 p.m, as per previous orders dated 27.03.2019. Defendants are at liberty to argue in between. (RAVINDER BEDI ) Additional District Judge-04 Judge code : DL0253 PHC, New Delhi/01.04.2019

orderdate Order Date04-04-2019 documents

CS No.: 59033 of 2016 Joginder Pal Kochar Vs M/s Harig India. 04.04.2019 Ld. PO is on half day leave. Present: None. As per directions of Ld. PO, put up for purpose fixed/ further proceedings on 27.04.2019. READER

orderdate Order Date27-04-2019 documents

IN THE COURT OF MS. RAVINDER BEDI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOSUE COURTS NEW DELHI DISTRICT, NEW DELHI CS No.59033/16 Joginder Pal Kochar …...................Plaintiff VS. M/s Harig India Ltd. & Ors .....................Defendants -:ORDER:- 1. This order shall dispose off an application dated 22.04.2015 filed on behalf of defendant no.4 under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) of CPC to place on record additional document i.e. Appointment letter dated 01.07.1981. 2. To put succinctly, it is stated by defendant no.4 that plaintiff has averred in this suit that he was an employee of defendant no.1 company from 27.06.1973 and was terminated w.e.f 14.06.2001 by Termination Letter issued by defendant no.1. It is stated that plaintiff joined the services of defendant no.1 by wayo f an Appointment Letter dated 01.07.1981. It is stated that this Appointment Letter could not be placed on record at appropriate stage with pleadings since it came to be known only recently when defendant no.3 to 5 changed the Panel Advocates and on inspection of file/briefs obtained from earlier advocates, it was learnt that the said Appointment Letter could not be placed on record. 3. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.4 submitted that the delay in filing the document is neither intentional nor deliberate and it was only an error on the part of earlier advocates representing the defendants. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has placed on record the judgments to buttress his submissions. CS No.59033/16 Joginder Pal Kochar VS. M/s Harig India Ltd. Page 1 of 3 4. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has resisted the application with vehemence. It is argued that the matter pertains to the year 2002 wherein the plaintiff has filed the suit for damages and compensation against the defendants. Ld. Counsel argued that the application is only a dilatory tactics just to prolong the matter. Ld. Counsel argues that the document in question has nowhere been averred in the Written Statement nor is mentioned in the list of documents as having relied upon. It is argued that the conduct of defendant no.4 is not vigilant and now he cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrongs. It is argued that the reasons for not filing the document are not justifiable enough to be entertained under the provisions of Order 8 rule 1 A (3) of CPC. Ld. Counsel has placed reliance on various judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. 5. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 6. It is trite that the documents cannot be permitted to be produced by the parties on any and every stage of the trial and those documents which are not produced at an appropriate stage should not be allowed unless and until sufficient explanation is shown therefor. In the present case, the application of defendant no.4 seeking permission to place on record the document is filed on 22.04.2015 i.e. when the matter is already pending for final arguments. The application does not cite any reason for belated filing thereof or forwarding any reasonable justification. It is not the case of the defendant that the document sought to be filed was not within the power and possession of defendant no.4. The proposed document has not even been part of list of documents nor is mentioned/relied upon in the Written Statement by the defendant. The explanation offered by the defendant for not filing the same at earlier stage is that the defendant came to know only recently when they changed their advocate and received file from earlier lawyer that this document could not be filed. I do not find any merit in this explanation which is not appealing enough to be entertained. 7. I observe that the defendant has failed to disclose sufficient grounds for not CS No.59033/16 Joginder Pal Kochar VS. M/s Harig India Ltd. Page 2 of 3 filing the document at appropriate stage alongwith pleadings. In the absence of any plausible reasons having forwarded, the application of the defendant is devoid of merit. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. 8. Re-list for final arguments on 20.05.2019. Brief synopsis be filed by the parties before next date of hearing and copies be supplied. (RAVINDER BEDI ) Additional District Judge-04 Judge code : DL0253 PHC, New Delhi/27.04.2019 CS No.59033/16 Joginder Pal Kochar VS. M/s Harig India Ltd. Page 3 of 3

orderdate Order Date20-05-2019 documents

CS No. 59033 of 2016 Joginder Pal Kochar Vs. M/s Harig India Ltd.  20.05.2019 Present : Proxy Counsel for the plaintiff. Defendants absent. Be awaited.      (RAVINDER BEDI ) Additional District Judge­04       Judge code : DL0253             PHC, New Delhi/20.05.2019 2nd call at 1 p.m. Present : Sr.Counsel Sh. S.Rajappa with Sh. Ram Gupta,  Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. Defendants are absent despite calls since morning. Final  arguments  heard  as  addressed by  Sr.  Counsel Sh.S.Rajappa.   He   seeks   to   file   written   synopsis/case law/citations/judgments.   Be filed on or before 02.07.2019. Post  the matter for final orders. In between Ld.Counsel for the defendants is at liberty to address his arguments.  Relist for final orders on 02.07.2019.     (RAVINDER BEDI ) Additional District Judge­04       Judge code : DL0253             PHC, New Delhi/20.05.2019

Final Order Judgement

orderdateOrder Date31-07-2019 documents
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAVINDER BEDI:  ADDITIOINAL DISTRICT JUDGE­04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI CS No. 59033/2016 Sh. Joginder Pal Kochar  s/o Late Gurubaksh Singh r/o 10/123, Sector ­3, Rajinder Nagar,  Sahibabad, UP.  ….....Plaintiff.  Versus. 1.  M/S Harig India Ltd. B­22, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi­57. (i) Reg. Office : 347, Vikas Kunj,  Vikaspuri, New Delhi.  Also at 607, Ansal Bhavan           16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,  New Delhi.  2.  Sh. Deshbir Singh (deleted) 3. Manjula Deshbir Singh   Managing Director  Harig India Ltd.  B­22, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi­57 4. Himmat Singh Director New Marketing  Harig India Ltd.  B­4/54, Safdarjung Enclave,  New Delhi.  5. Karam Singh Joginder Pal Kocher vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. CS No. 59033 of 2016                          Page no. 1 of page 13 s/o Sh. Deshbir Singh r/o 22, Vasant Vihar,  New Delhi­57 (Defendants no. 3 to 5 are LRs of Defendant no.2) 6. Amit Dhir (Manager, Accounts) 7. Sh. J.C.Chopra (expired) 8. S.K Majumdar (Chief Finance Officer) 9. K.K Ghai (General Manager, Defendant no.1) (Defendant no. 6 to 9 deleted on 04.05.2012)                            …........ Defendants Date of Institution : 10.04.2003 Suit received by transfer : 22.01.2016 Date of reserving judgment : 22.07.2019 Date of pronouncement : 31.07.2019 JUDGMENT 1. Plaintiff  instituted the present suit for damages and compensation of Rs.30,00,000/­ against the Defendant no.1 to 9 alongwith interest @ 24 per cent from the date of termination of his services. 2. At the outset, it is worthwhile to bring to fore the fact that by order dated   04.05.2012,   Defendants   no.6   to   9   were   deleted   from   array   of parties. On demise of Defendant no.2, her name was deleted from array of parties and her legal representatives i.e defendants no.3 to 5 were already impleaded by the Plaintiff. Joginder Pal Kocher vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. CS No. 59033 of 2016                          Page no. 2 of page 13 3.   As per   the averments   in   the  plaint,  Plaintiff   states   that  he was employed   by   Defendant   no.1   on   27.06.1973   in   accounts   department. Plaintiff was given promotion and increments from time to time due to his satisfactory   performance   and   was   promoted   to   the   Post   of   Manager (Commercial) in Accounts Department on  24.01.1997.  Plaintiff  during his entire service tenure was never issued any warning and his record was meritorious. 4. It is averred that the Defendants are involved in malpractices and many   criminal   activities   including   manipulation   of   the   records   of Defendant no.1 which is under the control and supervision of Defendant no.3 to 5. The paras no. 3 to 5 of the plaint contain detailed allegations by the Plaintiff against the Defendants in respect of their alleged misdeeds and  manipulation  of   records  of  Defendant  no.1  Company,   though   the same are irrelevant in so far as the nature of the suit  as well as relief sought for in the present case.  Plaintiff states that  Defendants in order to defeat   the   rights  of   Plaintiff's   livelihood,  pressurized   him  to   sign   the balance­sheet   prepared   by   Defendant   no.   6   and   9   for   audit   purpose. Plaintiff   upon   asking   its   verification   was   threatened   with   dire consequences   for   refusing   so.   Plaintiff   complained   against   Defendant no.6 , 8 and 9 (deleted later on)  before the Defendant no.3 but instead of taking   any   action,   Defendant   no.3   justified   the   unlawful   acts   of Defendants. 5. Plaintiff   states   that   on   14.06.2001   while   he   was   on   duty,   the Joginder Pal Kocher vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. CS No. 59033 of 2016                          Page no. 3 of page 13 Defendant no.7 called him and demanded resignation to which Plaintiff protested. Defendant no.2 to 7 then issued a letter dated 14.06.2001 and terminated services of Plaintiff without assigning any reason by enclosing a salary cheque of Rs.10,000/­dated 14.06.2001   in lieu of alleged one month's notice period. 6. The grievance of the Plaintiff is that letter dated 14.06.2001 terminating   his   services   without   assigning   any   reason     and   without holding any inquiry is illegal and against the principles of natural justice. Plaintiff   sent a legal notice dated 26.11.2001 upon the Defendants. The Defendants no.1 and 2 sent false and frivolous reply dated 06.12.2001 to the said notice. 7. Coming   to   the   relief   sought,   the   Plaintiff   has   claimed damages,  the computation whereof in para no. 14 of Plaint is as under: Last salary drawn  Rs. 14350 Increment due  Rs.     990 From Jan. 2001 Rs.15340 For 99 months           x99= Rs.14, 26,620/­ Add increment for 99 months @990= Rs.       92,070/­ Total 15,18,690/­ Add LTA Rs. 3500 x 96 months  =  Rs.  28,000/­ Medical Reimbursement Rs.3500 x 8 years  =  Rs.  28,000/­ Petrol Reimbursement Rs.2500 x 96 months = Rs.2,40,000/­ Add Bonus @ 6000/­per year   x 8 years  = Rs.   48,000/­ Add PF contribution 858 x 92 months =Rs.     79,794/­ Add gratuity 120 days (years) x 15 days per  year = Rs.    33, 000/­         Total  19,75, 484/­ Joginder Pal Kocher vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. CS No. 59033 of 2016                          Page no. 4 of page 13 Add leave encashment @ Rs.288 per day x 120 days = Rs.28,600/­ Compounded 45 days per year for working years Year total works 29 year for working years  Composite 29 x 45. 1130 days x 511/20 per day   Rs. 6,67,290/­ Mental trauma & humiliation         Rs.  3,28,626/­ (Total sum of Rs.Thirty Lakhs)        Rs. 30,00,000/­ 8.   Plaintiff states that due to illegal act of termination by the Defendants,    he  and his   family  underwent  agony and suffered  mental trauma in as much as the studies of his two daughters got discontinued. Plaintiff   also   suffered   numerous   difficulties   for   which   Plaintiff   has claimed   compensation   of   Rs.   3,28,626/­.   The   Plaintiff,   therefore,   has prayed for a decree of compensation of Rs.30,00,000/­ alongwith  24  % interest from the date of his termination. 9. Written Statement was filed by Defendants wherein they denied the averments made by the Plaintiff. It is contended that Plaintiff at the time of   his   termination   was   employed   as   a   Manager   (Commercial)   which included   preparation   of   accounts,   getting   the   audits   completed   and dealing  with   income  tax,   sales   tax.   It   is   contended   that   the  Plaintiff's performance started deteriorating and he became a non performer and was advised many times to improve his performance. It is contended that due to poor performance of the Plaintiff in the year 2000, no increment was released to him in January, 2001. The Plaintiff was also issued a warning letter   dated   10.04.2001.   Since   Plaintiff   utterly   failed   to   discharge   his duties  as  Manager   (Commercial),  his   services  were   terminated  by  the Joginder Pal Kocher vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. CS No. 59033 of 2016                          Page no. 5 of page 13 Management   on   14.06.2001.   Rest   of   the   allegations   contained   in   the plaint were denied as false. 10. Replication   to   the   Written   Statement   was   filed   by   the Plaintiff   wherein   the   averments   made   in   the   written   statement   were denied as incorrect and corresponding averments made in the plaint were reiterated as true and correct. Plaintiff denied as to having received any warning  letter  dated 10.04.2001 and stated  that  same was a fabricated document. 11. From   pleadings   of   parties,   following   issues   were   settled   on 17.10.2006: 1. Whether   service   of   the   Plaintiff   was   terminated   being actuated by malice and ill will against the Plaintiff?OPP 2. If issue no.1 is decided in favour of the Plaintiff, what is the effect thereof? OPP 3. Whether the Plaintiff was not gainfully employed after his service were terminated? If yes, effect thereof? OPP 4. Relief.  12. Matter was listed for evidence of Plaintiff. It is pertinent to state that despite opportunities, Plaintiff did not bring any evidence from 17.10.2006 till 20.07.2011; he was burdened with cost of Rs.10,000/­. It was only on 03.09.2013 that the Plaintiff examined himself as PW1. The sole  witness    examined by Defendants   is  DW1 Sh.  Karan Singh who Joginder Pal Kocher vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. CS No. 59033 of 2016                          Page no. 6 of page 13 tendered   his   evidence   by   way   of   affidavit   Ex.DW1/A.   Defendant's evidence was closed on 28.01.2015. 13.  I have heard Ld. Counsel for parties and have perused the entire record in the light of relevant statutory provisions of law and the authorities   relied  upon by  the  Plaintiff.  My  issue­wise   findings  are  as under: Issue no.1 Whether   service   of   the   Plaintiff   was   terminated   being actuated by malice and ill will against the Plaintiff? OPP Issue no.2 If issue no.1 is decided in favour of the Plaintiff, what is the effect thereof? OPP 14.   Issue no. 1 and 2 being interconnected and intertwined, are taken   up   together.  The   onus   to   prove   them   was   upon   Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff examined himself as PW1  by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and deposed on the lines  as averred in the plaint.  PW1 proved the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/19. During cross­examination, PW­1 denied that he jointed his services as Manager (Commercial). The categorical stand of Defendants   is   that    Plaintiff   joined as  Manager   (Commercial).     In  his plaint, Plaintiff though averred that he joined Accounts department but did   not   disclose   on   which   post   did   he   join   in   Accounts   department. Plaintiff has not filed his joining/appointment letter from which it could Joginder Pal Kocher vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. CS No. 59033 of 2016                          Page no. 7 of page 13 be   discernible   as   to   his   initial   joining   /   post   as   well   as   terms   and conditions. The reasons are inexplicable for the same. The evidence of DW­1  discloses   that  performance  of   the  Plaintiff   started  deteriorating considerably and as a result of his poor performance, his work went on accumulating and the Plaintiff became a non­performer. Due to the said reasons, no increment was released to the Plaintiff in the year 2000.  15.  Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff   submits that the Plaintiff has been able  to prove his case and the termination of  the services of  the Plaintiff was on account of the fact that the Defendants were engaged in mal­practices    and   pressured Plaintiff   to  sign  balance  sheet   for  audit purpose and upon his refusal, terminated his services without assigning any reason.  He further submits that the Plaintiff is entitled to back wages for   the   remainder   of   his   service   which   as   per   him   would   be   up   to 31.05.2009. He argued that warning letter Ex.D1/1, appraisal form dated 05.01.2001  Ex.  D1/2  and  report  of  Mr.  S.K.  Majumdar  Ex.  D1/3  are fabricated and manufactured letters being afterthought of  the Defendants. 16. It is the admitted case of plaintiff that the  employment of the plaintiff  was a  private  employment  and was not  a  public  employment which is protected like an employment with a State or an arm of a State as per  Article 12  of the Constitution of India. Plaintiff has not placed on record the letter of his employment/appointment from which it could have discerned   as to what were the conditions of the employment including termination.  Thus, before adverting to the fact of  alleged  malice and ill Joginder Pal Kocher vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. CS No. 59033 of 2016                          Page no. 8 of page 13 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/609139/ will   in   the   termination  of   the  Plaintiff,   it   is   imperative   to  discuss   the nature of contract of employment between parties and the relevant settled law on the same as  expounded  by the Hon’ble Apex Court and Superior Courts of Law.   Hon'ble  Supreme Court in the case of  S.S. Shetty Vs. Bharat  Nidhi  Ltd.,  AIR 1958 SC 12  observed  that  even  if   there  is  an illegal   termination  of  an  employee by a  private  employer,  at  best   the employee is entitled to the salary for the notice period.   Reliance can be placed   further  on  L.M.  Khosla  Vs.  Thai  Airways   International  Public Company Limited & Anr., CS(OS) No.673/1997, decided on 01.08.2012 by Hon'ble Delhi Court. 17. The     Plaintiff   is   governed   by   a   private   contract.   The Defendants terminated the services of Plaintiff by granting one month’s salary towards the notice period.  What the Plaintiff alleges is that the act of his termination by the Defendants was actuated by malice and ill will feelings. Since, it is not in dispute that the contract in the present case is determinable   in   nature;   Plaintiff   being   in   private   employment,   the Defendants have every right to terminate the services of their employees by giving specified notice period. The Plaintiff at best is entitled to get salary for the notice period or during such period till the time he had not been employed to some other employment on principles of mitigation of losses.  18. In the case of GE Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd.  Vs.Shri   Tarun   Bhargava  in   RFA   No.294/2004   decided   on Joginder Pal Kocher vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. CS No. 59033 of 2016                          Page no. 9 of page 13 20.3.2012 and Shri Satya Narain Garg through his legal heirs Vs. DCM Limited and Ors. in RFA No.556/2002 decided on 5.12.2011, it was held that the contracts which are determinable in nature cannot be specifically enforced as per Section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.  If the contract  of   employment   provides   for   specific   notice   period,   then,   the maximum entitlement  of  damages  of  an employee who alleges   illegal termination is specific period's pay. 19. It is not the case of the Plaintiff that the termination was on account of breach of some conditions of Contract.  Even presuming there was a breach of contract,  only reasonable damages could be   granted to Plaintiff.   Once there is a clause for termination of services by notice, it can   only   be   that   notice   period,   which   can   be   treated   as   reasonable damages in as much as parties understood the period for obtaining of an alternative   employment.   I  am placing  reliance  upon  the  Judgment  of Supreme Court reported as S.S. Shetty v. Bharat Nidhi Ltd., AIR 1958 SC 12 20. In view of the afore stated settled position under law, I hold that   since   the   contract   of   employment   was   private   in   nature,   it   was determinable under law. The Defendants already gave one month's salary in lieu of the notice period of one month. The Plaintiff as such failed to establish that he had any cause of action against the Defendants' act of terminating him. From examining the of testimony of PW­1, nothing has come up in support of the fact that the act of Defendants' was actuated by Joginder Pal Kocher vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. CS No. 59033 of 2016                          Page no. 10 of page 13 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1810351/ https://indiankanoon.org/doc/28533/ any arbitrariness or ill will.  Even in case of termination due to the breach of  conditions of the employment (which is not the case of Plaintiff), the maximum effect of such an illegal termination could be his entitlement to the salary for period as per the contract. Having observed so, the issues stand decided against the Plaintiff and in favour of Defendants. Issue   no.   3  Whether   the   Plaintiff   was   not gainfully   employed   after   his   service   were terminated? If yes, effect thereof? OPP 21. The onus of proving this issue was   upon the plaintiff.   Ld. Counsel   for   the  plaintiff  argued  that   the  Plaintiff   tried a   lot   to  secure another job but he could not get the same and is unemployed till date and is now 71 years of age. Ld. Counsel argued that the illegal termination by the Defendants casted a stigma on Plaintiff due to which he could not secure another job. 22. In case of  termination of services, it is not possible to grant damages as claimed inasmuch as the principle of mitigation of damages applies, as per  Section 73  of the Contract Act, 1872.   The law in this regard is contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as S.S. Shetty v. Bharat Nidhi Ltd., AIR 1958 SC 12. 23. In Binny Ltd. & Anr. Vs. V. Sadasivan & Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 657, wherein it was held.  Joginder Pal Kocher vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. CS No. 59033 of 2016                          Page no. 11 of page 13 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/261493/ https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1810351/ https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1810351/ https://indiankanoon.org/doc/339747/ “The position as it obtains in the ordinary law   of   master  and   servant   is   quite   clear.   The master   who   wrongfully  dismisses   his   servant   is bound   to   pay   him   such   damages   as   will compensate   him   for   the   wrong   that   he   has sustained.  They are to be assessed by reference to the   amount  earned   in   the   service   wrongfully terminated and the time likely     to elapse before the   servant   obtains   another   post   for   which   he fitted. If the contract expressly provides that it is terminable     upon,   e.g.,   a   month's   notice,   the damages will ordinarily be a   month's wages.  No compensation  can be  claimed   in   respect  of   the injury   done   to   the   servant's   feelings   by   the circumstances of his dismissal,  nor  in respect  of extra   difficulty  of   finding   work   resulting   from those   circumstances.   A   servant   who   has   been wrongfully  dismissed  must  use  diligence   to   seek another employment, and the fact that he has been offered a   suitable post may be taken into account in assessing the  damages."   24.  I have carefully looked into the testimony of PW­1. I find that  Plaintiff  has  not  proved   as   to  what   steps  he   took  to  procure alternative employment.   The Plaintiff has not filed any document to Joginder Pal Kocher vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. CS No. 59033 of 2016                          Page no. 12 of page 13 discharge the onus of proof of mitigation of damages. The deposition of PW­1 is bereft of anything as to where or in which firms or persons he applied to, on which dates, for what position, for what salary and also   the   details   as   to   why   he   could   not   obtain   the   alternative employment. In the absence of any evidence on record, Plaintiff is not entitled for grant of damages as claimed in as much as the principle of mitigation of damages squarely applies.   I therefore, hold that even assuming, Plaintiff was wrongly terminated from services, he failed to prove   that   the   took   sufficient   steps   for   mitigation   of   damages   to employ himself gainfully. The issue thus is decided against Plaintiff and in favour of Defendants.   Relief  25. On account of my findings in issue no. 1 to 3, I hold that plaintiff has failed to prove for   entitlement for relief of recovery of Rs. 30,00,000/­ as compensation/damages.   The suit of the plaintiff stands  dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.  File be consigned to records room after due compliance, as per rules.          (Announced in the open Court)                  RAVINDER BEDI           Additional District Judge­04               Judge Code: DL0253      PHC/New Delhi/31.07.2019 Joginder Pal Kocher vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. CS No. 59033 of 2016                          Page no. 13 of page 13
orderdateOrder Date31-07-2019 documents
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAVINDER BEDI:  ADDITIOINAL DISTRICT JUDGE­04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI CS No. 59033/2016 Sh. Joginder Pal Kochar  s/o Late Gurubaksh Singh r/o 10/123, Sector ­3, Rajinder Nagar,  Sahibabad, UP.  ….....Plaintiff.  Versus. 1.  M/S Harig India Ltd. B­22, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi­57. (i) Reg. Office : 347, Vikas Kunj,  Vikaspuri, New Delhi.  Also at 607, Ansal Bhavan           16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,  New Delhi.  2.  Sh. Deshbir Singh (deleted) 3. Manjula Deshbir Singh   Managing Director  Harig India Ltd.  B­22, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi­57 4. Himmat Singh Director New Marketing  Harig India Ltd.  B­4/54, Safdarjung Enclave,  New Delhi.  5. Karam Singh Joginder Pal Kocher vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. CS No. 59033 of 2016                          Page no. 1 of page 13 s/o Sh. Deshbir Singh r/o 22, Vasant Vihar,  New Delhi­57 (Defendants no. 3 to 5 are LRs of Defendant no.2) 6. Amit Dhir (Manager, Accounts) 7. Sh. J.C.Chopra (expired) 8. S.K Majumdar (Chief Finance Officer) 9. K.K Ghai (General Manager, Defendant no.1) (Defendant no. 6 to 9 deleted on 04.05.2012)                            …........ Defendants Date of Institution : 10.04.2003 Suit received by transfer : 22.01.2016 Date of reserving judgment : 22.07.2019 Date of pronouncement : 31.07.2019 JUDGMENT 1. Plaintiff  instituted the present suit for damages and compensation of Rs.30,00,000/­ against the Defendant no.1 to 9 alongwith interest @ 24 per cent from the date of termination of his services. 2. At the outset, it is worthwhile to bring to fore the fact that by order dated   04.05.2012,   Defendants   no.6   to   9   were   deleted   from   array   of parties. On demise of Defendant no.2, her name was deleted from array of parties and her legal representatives i.e defendants no.3 to 5 were already impleaded by the Plaintiff. Joginder Pal Kocher vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. CS No. 59033 of 2016                          Page no. 2 of page 13 3.   As per   the averments   in   the  plaint,  Plaintiff   states   that  he was employed   by   Defendant   no.1   on   27.06.1973   in   accounts   department. Plaintiff was given promotion and increments from time to time due to his satisfactory   performance   and   was   promoted   to   the   Post   of   Manager (Commercial) in Accounts Department on  24.01.1997.  Plaintiff  during his entire service tenure was never issued any warning and his record was meritorious. 4. It is averred that the Defendants are involved in malpractices and many   criminal   activities   including   manipulation   of   the   records   of Defendant no.1 which is under the control and supervision of Defendant no.3 to 5. The paras no. 3 to 5 of the plaint contain detailed allegations by the Plaintiff against the Defendants in respect of their alleged misdeeds and  manipulation  of   records  of  Defendant  no.1  Company,   though   the same are irrelevant in so far as the nature of the suit  as well as relief sought for in the present case.  Plaintiff states that  Defendants in order to defeat   the   rights  of   Plaintiff's   livelihood,  pressurized   him  to   sign   the balance­sheet   prepared   by   Defendant   no.   6   and   9   for   audit   purpose. Plaintiff   upon   asking   its   verification   was   threatened   with   dire consequences   for   refusing   so.   Plaintiff   complained   against   Defendant no.6 , 8 and 9 (deleted later on)  before the Defendant no.3 but instead of taking   any   action,   Defendant   no.3   justified   the   unlawful   acts   of Defendants. 5. Plaintiff   states   that   on   14.06.2001   while   he   was   on   duty,   the Joginder Pal Kocher vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. CS No. 59033 of 2016                          Page no. 3 of page 13 Defendant no.7 called him and demanded resignation to which Plaintiff protested. Defendant no.2 to 7 then issued a letter dated 14.06.2001 and terminated services of Plaintiff without assigning any reason by enclosing a salary cheque of Rs.10,000/­dated 14.06.2001   in lieu of alleged one month's notice period. 6. The grievance of the Plaintiff is that letter dated 14.06.2001 terminating   his   services   without   assigning   any   reason     and   without holding any inquiry is illegal and against the principles of natural justice. Plaintiff   sent a legal notice dated 26.11.2001 upon the Defendants. The Defendants no.1 and 2 sent false and frivolous reply dated 06.12.2001 to the said notice. 7. Coming   to   the   relief   sought,   the   Plaintiff   has   claimed damages,  the computation whereof in para no. 14 of Plaint is as under: Last salary drawn  Rs. 14350 Increment due  Rs.     990 From Jan. 2001 Rs.15340 For 99 months           x99= Rs.14, 26,620/­ Add increment for 99 months @990= Rs.       92,070/­ Total 15,18,690/­ Add LTA Rs. 3500 x 96 months  =  Rs.  28,000/­ Medical Reimbursement Rs.3500 x 8 years  =  Rs.  28,000/­ Petrol Reimbursement Rs.2500 x 96 months = Rs.2,40,000/­ Add Bonus @ 6000/­per year   x 8 years  = Rs.   48,000/­ Add PF contribution 858 x 92 months =Rs.     79,794/­ Add gratuity 120 days (years) x 15 days per  year = Rs.    33, 000/­         Total  19,75, 484/­ Joginder Pal Kocher vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. CS No. 59033 of 2016                          Page no. 4 of page 13 Add leave encashment @ Rs.288 per day x 120 days = Rs.28,600/­ Compounded 45 days per year for working years Year total works 29 year for working years  Composite 29 x 45. 1130 days x 511/20 per day   Rs. 6,67,290/­ Mental trauma & humiliation         Rs.  3,28,626/­ (Total sum of Rs.Thirty Lakhs)        Rs. 30,00,000/­ 8.   Plaintiff states that due to illegal act of termination by the Defendants,    he  and his   family  underwent  agony and suffered  mental trauma in as much as the studies of his two daughters got discontinued. Plaintiff   also   suffered   numerous   difficulties   for   which   Plaintiff   has claimed   compensation   of   Rs.   3,28,626/­.   The   Plaintiff,   therefore,   has prayed for a decree of compensation of Rs.30,00,000/­ alongwith  24  % interest from the date of his termination. 9. Written Statement was filed by Defendants wherein they denied the averments made by the Plaintiff. It is contended that Plaintiff at the time of   his   termination   was   employed   as   a   Manager   (Commercial)   which included   preparation   of   accounts,   getting   the   audits   completed   and dealing  with   income  tax,   sales   tax.   It   is   contended   that   the  Plaintiff's performance started deteriorating and he became a non performer and was advised many times to improve his performance. It is contended that due to poor performance of the Plaintiff in the year 2000, no increment was released to him in January, 2001. The Plaintiff was also issued a warning letter   dated   10.04.2001.   Since   Plaintiff   utterly   failed   to   discharge   his duties  as  Manager   (Commercial),  his   services  were   terminated  by  the Joginder Pal Kocher vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. CS No. 59033 of 2016                          Page no. 5 of page 13 Management   on   14.06.2001.   Rest   of   the   allegations   contained   in   the plaint were denied as false. 10. Replication   to   the   Written   Statement   was   filed   by   the Plaintiff   wherein   the   averments   made   in   the   written   statement   were denied as incorrect and corresponding averments made in the plaint were reiterated as true and correct. Plaintiff denied as to having received any warning  letter  dated 10.04.2001 and stated  that  same was a fabricated document. 11. From   pleadings   of   parties,   following   issues   were   settled   on 17.10.2006: 1. Whether   service   of   the   Plaintiff   was   terminated   being actuated by malice and ill will against the Plaintiff?OPP 2. If issue no.1 is decided in favour of the Plaintiff, what is the effect thereof? OPP 3. Whether the Plaintiff was not gainfully employed after his service were terminated? If yes, effect thereof? OPP 4. Relief.  12. Matter was listed for evidence of Plaintiff. It is pertinent to state that despite opportunities, Plaintiff did not bring any evidence from 17.10.2006 till 20.07.2011; he was burdened with cost of Rs.10,000/­. It was only on 03.09.2013 that the Plaintiff examined himself as PW1. The sole  witness    examined by Defendants   is  DW1 Sh.  Karan Singh who Joginder Pal Kocher vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. CS No. 59033 of 2016                          Page no. 6 of page 13 tendered   his   evidence   by   way   of   affidavit   Ex.DW1/A.   Defendant's evidence was closed on 28.01.2015. 13.  I have heard Ld. Counsel for parties and have perused the entire record in the light of relevant statutory provisions of law and the authorities   relied  upon by  the  Plaintiff.  My  issue­wise   findings  are  as under: Issue no.1 Whether   service   of   the   Plaintiff   was   terminated   being actuated by malice and ill will against the Plaintiff? OPP Issue no.2 If issue no.1 is decided in favour of the Plaintiff, what is the effect thereof? OPP 14.   Issue no. 1 and 2 being interconnected and intertwined, are taken   up   together.  The   onus   to   prove   them   was   upon   Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff examined himself as PW1  by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and deposed on the lines  as averred in the plaint.  PW1 proved the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/19. During cross­examination, PW­1 denied that he jointed his services as Manager (Commercial). The categorical stand of Defendants   is   that    Plaintiff   joined as  Manager   (Commercial).     In  his plaint, Plaintiff though averred that he joined Accounts department but did   not   disclose   on   which   post   did   he   join   in   Accounts   department. Plaintiff has not filed his joining/appointment letter from which it could Joginder Pal Kocher vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. CS No. 59033 of 2016                          Page no. 7 of page 13 be   discernible   as   to   his   initial   joining   /   post   as   well   as   terms   and conditions. The reasons are inexplicable for the same. The evidence of DW­1  discloses   that  performance  of   the  Plaintiff   started  deteriorating considerably and as a result of his poor performance, his work went on accumulating and the Plaintiff became a non­performer. Due to the said reasons, no increment was released to the Plaintiff in the year 2000.  15.  Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff   submits that the Plaintiff has been able  to prove his case and the termination of  the services of  the Plaintiff was on account of the fact that the Defendants were engaged in mal­practices    and   pressured Plaintiff   to  sign  balance  sheet   for  audit purpose and upon his refusal, terminated his services without assigning any reason.  He further submits that the Plaintiff is entitled to back wages for   the   remainder   of   his   service   which   as   per   him   would   be   up   to 31.05.2009. He argued that warning letter Ex.D1/1, appraisal form dated 05.01.2001  Ex.  D1/2  and  report  of  Mr.  S.K.  Majumdar  Ex.  D1/3  are fabricated and manufactured letters being afterthought of  the Defendants. 16. It is the admitted case of plaintiff that the  employment of the plaintiff  was a  private  employment  and was not  a  public  employment which is protected like an employment with a State or an arm of a State as per  Article 12  of the Constitution of India. Plaintiff has not placed on record the letter of his employment/appointment from which it could have discerned   as to what were the conditions of the employment including termination.  Thus, before adverting to the fact of  alleged  malice and ill Joginder Pal Kocher vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. CS No. 59033 of 2016                          Page no. 8 of page 13 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/609139/ will   in   the   termination  of   the  Plaintiff,   it   is   imperative   to  discuss   the nature of contract of employment between parties and the relevant settled law on the same as  expounded  by the Hon’ble Apex Court and Superior Courts of Law.   Hon'ble  Supreme Court in the case of  S.S. Shetty Vs. Bharat  Nidhi  Ltd.,  AIR 1958 SC 12  observed  that  even  if   there  is  an illegal   termination  of  an  employee by a  private  employer,  at  best   the employee is entitled to the salary for the notice period.   Reliance can be placed   further  on  L.M.  Khosla  Vs.  Thai  Airways   International  Public Company Limited & Anr., CS(OS) No.673/1997, decided on 01.08.2012 by Hon'ble Delhi Court. 17. The     Plaintiff   is   governed   by   a   private   contract.   The Defendants terminated the services of Plaintiff by granting one month’s salary towards the notice period.  What the Plaintiff alleges is that the act of his termination by the Defendants was actuated by malice and ill will feelings. Since, it is not in dispute that the contract in the present case is determinable   in   nature;   Plaintiff   being   in   private   employment,   the Defendants have every right to terminate the services of their employees by giving specified notice period. The Plaintiff at best is entitled to get salary for the notice period or during such period till the time he had not been employed to some other employment on principles of mitigation of losses.  18. In the case of GE Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd.  Vs.Shri   Tarun   Bhargava  in   RFA   No.294/2004   decided   on Joginder Pal Kocher vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. CS No. 59033 of 2016                          Page no. 9 of page 13 20.3.2012 and Shri Satya Narain Garg through his legal heirs Vs. DCM Limited and Ors. in RFA No.556/2002 decided on 5.12.2011, it was held that the contracts which are determinable in nature cannot be specifically enforced as per Section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.  If the contract  of   employment   provides   for   specific   notice   period,   then,   the maximum entitlement  of  damages  of  an employee who alleges   illegal termination is specific period's pay. 19. It is not the case of the Plaintiff that the termination was on account of breach of some conditions of Contract.  Even presuming there was a breach of contract,  only reasonable damages could be   granted to Plaintiff.   Once there is a clause for termination of services by notice, it can   only   be   that   notice   period,   which   can   be   treated   as   reasonable damages in as much as parties understood the period for obtaining of an alternative   employment.   I  am placing  reliance  upon  the  Judgment  of Supreme Court reported as S.S. Shetty v. Bharat Nidhi Ltd., AIR 1958 SC 12 20. In view of the afore stated settled position under law, I hold that   since   the   contract   of   employment   was   private   in   nature,   it   was determinable under law. The Defendants already gave one month's salary in lieu of the notice period of one month. The Plaintiff as such failed to establish that he had any cause of action against the Defendants' act of terminating him. From examining the of testimony of PW­1, nothing has come up in support of the fact that the act of Defendants' was actuated by Joginder Pal Kocher vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. CS No. 59033 of 2016                          Page no. 10 of page 13 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1810351/ https://indiankanoon.org/doc/28533/ any arbitrariness or ill will.  Even in case of termination due to the breach of  conditions of the employment (which is not the case of Plaintiff), the maximum effect of such an illegal termination could be his entitlement to the salary for period as per the contract. Having observed so, the issues stand decided against the Plaintiff and in favour of Defendants. Issue   no.   3  Whether   the   Plaintiff   was   not gainfully   employed   after   his   service   were terminated? If yes, effect thereof? OPP 21. The onus of proving this issue was   upon the plaintiff.   Ld. Counsel   for   the  plaintiff  argued  that   the  Plaintiff   tried a   lot   to  secure another job but he could not get the same and is unemployed till date and is now 71 years of age. Ld. Counsel argued that the illegal termination by the Defendants casted a stigma on Plaintiff due to which he could not secure another job. 22. In case of  termination of services, it is not possible to grant damages as claimed inasmuch as the principle of mitigation of damages applies, as per  Section 73  of the Contract Act, 1872.   The law in this regard is contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as S.S. Shetty v. Bharat Nidhi Ltd., AIR 1958 SC 12. 23. In Binny Ltd. & Anr. Vs. V. Sadasivan & Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 657, wherein it was held.  Joginder Pal Kocher vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. CS No. 59033 of 2016                          Page no. 11 of page 13 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/261493/ https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1810351/ https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1810351/ https://indiankanoon.org/doc/339747/ “The position as it obtains in the ordinary law   of   master  and   servant   is   quite   clear.   The master   who   wrongfully  dismisses   his   servant   is bound   to   pay   him   such   damages   as   will compensate   him   for   the   wrong   that   he   has sustained.  They are to be assessed by reference to the   amount  earned   in   the   service   wrongfully terminated and the time likely     to elapse before the   servant   obtains   another   post   for   which   he fitted. If the contract expressly provides that it is terminable     upon,   e.g.,   a   month's   notice,   the damages will ordinarily be a   month's wages.  No compensation  can be  claimed   in   respect  of   the injury   done   to   the   servant's   feelings   by   the circumstances of his dismissal,  nor  in respect  of extra   difficulty  of   finding   work   resulting   from those   circumstances.   A   servant   who   has   been wrongfully  dismissed  must  use  diligence   to   seek another employment, and the fact that he has been offered a   suitable post may be taken into account in assessing the  damages."   24.  I have carefully looked into the testimony of PW­1. I find that  Plaintiff  has  not  proved   as   to  what   steps  he   took  to  procure alternative employment.   The Plaintiff has not filed any document to Joginder Pal Kocher vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. CS No. 59033 of 2016                          Page no. 12 of page 13 discharge the onus of proof of mitigation of damages. The deposition of PW­1 is bereft of anything as to where or in which firms or persons he applied to, on which dates, for what position, for what salary and also   the   details   as   to   why   he   could   not   obtain   the   alternative employment. In the absence of any evidence on record, Plaintiff is not entitled for grant of damages as claimed in as much as the principle of mitigation of damages squarely applies.   I therefore, hold that even assuming, Plaintiff was wrongly terminated from services, he failed to prove   that   the   took   sufficient   steps   for   mitigation   of   damages   to employ himself gainfully. The issue thus is decided against Plaintiff and in favour of Defendants.   Relief  25. On account of my findings in issue no. 1 to 3, I hold that plaintiff has failed to prove for   entitlement for relief of recovery of Rs. 30,00,000/­ as compensation/damages.   The suit of the plaintiff stands  dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.  File be consigned to records room after due compliance, as per rules.          (Announced in the open Court)                  RAVINDER BEDI           Additional District Judge­04               Judge Code: DL0253      PHC/New Delhi/31.07.2019 Joginder Pal Kocher vs. M/s Harig India Ltd. CS No. 59033 of 2016                          Page no. 13 of page 13
orderdateOrder Date31-07-2019 documents
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAVINDER BEDI :  ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE­04: PATIALA HOUSE COURTS :  NEW DELHI. CS No. 59033/2016 Sh. Joginder Pal Kochar  31.07.2019 Present: None. Vide my separate judgment suit of plaintiff is dismissed in the manner indicated therein.  File be consigned to record room after due compliance, as per rules.      (RAVINDER BEDI ) Additional District Judge­04         Judge code : DL0253          PHC, New Delhi/31.07.2019

Similar Cases

Frequently Asked Questions

The Petitioner in case Joginder Pal Kochar vs M/S Harig India Ltd. is Joginder Pal Kochar.

The Respondent in case Joginder Pal Kochar vs M/S Harig India Ltd. is M/S Harig India Ltd..

The case against M/S Harig India Ltd.was filed on 10-04-2003 by Joginder Pal Kochar.

The status of case Joginder Pal Kochar against M/S Harig India Ltd. is Case Disposed.