Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs Lea Associates South Asia PVT LTD On 12 November, 2014 PDF

8/29/2019 Krishna Kumar Gupta vs Lea Associates South Asia Pvt Ltd on 12 November, 2014
Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer Mobile View

Cites 4 docs
Section 23 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
ALL-IN FARE FROM EXTRA 25% OFF

ESCAPE TO OVER
₹ Promo code:
Book Now
30 DESTINATIONS! 4,500*
*Terms & conditions apply
ScootBiz from ₹12,500 ESCAPE25
↺
Get this document in PDF Print it on a file/printer
User Queries
Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience.
krishna kumar gupta
Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
south asia
krishna kumar
Delhi District Court contract citedby:1625889
Krishna Kumar Gupta vs Lea Associates South Asia Pvt Ltd on 12 November, 2014 m.krishna
alternative employment
Author: Sh. Balwant Rai
displeasure
illegal termination
IN THE COURT OF SH BALWANT RAI BANSAL,
what is insubordination
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE02, SOUTH EAST,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI mitigation of damages
mental agony
breach of contract filter:
development breach of contract
Civil Suit No. 433/12 damages
breach of contract
contract employment
Krishna Kumar Gupta
adverse remarks
S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Ram
R/o House No. 1091, Sector13UE indiscipline
Karnal, Haryana terms of contract
.......... Plaintiff
emails
Versus
termination of services
Lea Associates South Asia Pvt Ltd. principles of natural justice

Through its Managing Director
B1/E27, Mohan CoOp. Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044
......... Defendant
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND RECOVERY OF

RS. 18,29,254/ (RUPEES EIGHTEEN LACS TWENTY NINE
THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY FOUR ONLY)
TOWARDS LEGAL DUES, DAMAGES AND COMPENSATION
FOR ILLEGAL TERMINATION OF THE SERVICES
(a) Date of institution : 19.12.2008

(b) Date when judgment reserved : 09.10.2014
(c) Date of Judgment : 12.11.2014
CS No. 433/12
Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 of 40
JUDGMENT:
1.
Brief facts as averred in the plaint are that plaintiff is a professionally qualified civil engineer having
vast experience and has also worked with the Govt. of Haryana as a Consultant Engineer till his
superannuation. Thereafter, the plaintiff has been offered jobs by the companies such as Louis Berger
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182694370/ 1/15
Group Inc (USA), Theme Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. but he was not satisfied with the conditions
and did not accept the said offers. The defendant offered the plaintiff to work as a Resident Engineer
for the supervision of construction work at AdigratAdwaShire Road Upgrading Project Shire Adi Abun
and the appointment letter dated 10.03.2008 was issued which contained the service conditions and
assured that the period of employment was tentatively 30 months. The plaintiff accepted the same. The
plaintiff left for Ethiopia in the month of March, 2008 and with utmost sincerity and diligence started
work on the project assigned to him. The clients of the defendant were completely satisfied with the
performance and working of the plaintiff and also praised professional caliber of plaintiff on several
occasions. In the month of April, 2008 Sh. Pinaki Rai Chaudhary, MD of the defendant company along
with other junior engineers visited Ethiopia and directed the plaintiff to prepare and serve food using
his resources to all the engineers at his residence on the payment basis till they CS No. 433/12 Krishna
Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 of 40 remained at work site. The
plaintiff politely declined and volunteered to honour all the accompanying persons for some couple of
days, but not for all the times as wife of the plaintiff was also scheduled to reach Ethiopia. It is averred
that this solitary incident was taken by the MD of the defendant as an insult and he pressurized the
plaintiff to resign from the services. The plaintiff resisted as he was not at fault. But to utter shock and
dismay of the plaintiff, he received email dated 19.08.2008 wherein serious allegations on the
performance of the plaintiff were levelled and without affording any opportunity of being heard, the
defendant in an arbitrary, unjust and illegal manner by invoking clause 15 (i) & (ii) of the letter of
assignment terminated the services of the plaintiff vide letter dated 27.08.2008.
2. It is stated that during the entire period of service, the plaintiff was not informed about the
displeasure of the clients nor he was ever issued any warning. The allegations had been totally
concocted to harass and humiliate the plaintiff and to settle the personal score. It is further averred that
the plaintiff was not only unceremoniously thrown out of the employment, but the defendant also
caused emotional pain and injuries to the plaintiff, more so, when he was away from the country and at
the command and disposal of the defendant. The plaintiff was not paid perdiam for three months and
even the return ticket was not arranged and constrained with the CS No. 433/12 Krishna Kumar Gupta
Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 of 40 inhuman attitude of the official of the
defendant, plaintiff sent an email dated 10.09.2008 to the defendant protesting for unjustified and
unreasonable removal. When the plaintiff landed at Mumbai, he was mentally shocked and shattered
with the attitude of the employer and when he got medically examined, his sugar level has increased
alarmingly. It is averred that the defendant has resorted to arbitrary and unjust practice by summarily
removing the plaintiff by invoking a clause, which even otherwise is void in terms of Section 23 & 27
of the Indian Contract Act and without giving an opportunity of being heard by violating the basic
principles of natural justice. Hence, the present suit.
3. The plaintiff has claimed that he has not been paid his legal and legitimate dues and hence the
plaintiff has claimed legal dues as follows : i. Salary for the period from 01.08.2008 to 31.08.2008 for
Rs. 20,000/, ii. Local perdiem from 28.08.2008 to 31.08.2008 for Rs. 2025/ iii. Air ticket from place of
posting to Addis for self and wife for Rs. 6,489/, iv. The fare from Mumbai to Delhi by second
AC/local transportation for Rs. 4,440/, v. Taxi charges of Delhi to Karnal for Rs. 1800/, vi. Pending
bills for Rs. 3000/ CS No. 433/12 Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 of 40 vii. Overseas per diem USD 2200 per month i.e. Rs. 99,000/ for the period 01.01.2008 to
31.08.2008 totaling to Rs. 1,36,754/.
4. The plaintiff has also prayed for a decree of declaration that removal of the plaintiff from the
services vide letter dated 27.08.2008 to be illegal, unjustified and inoperative and after declaring the
same to grant a money decree under the following heads: Money decree for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/‐
on account of compensation for harassment, humiliation and mental agony.
The plaintiff has also claimed salary for remaining period of 25 months along with perks which
comes at Rs. 34,75,000/, however the plaintiff has restricted the said claim upto 30% and has claimed
Rs. 10,42,500/ as compensation/damages and loss of earnings on account of his illegal and arbitrary
removal from the services. The plaintiff has also claimed Rs. 1,50,000/ paid to the income tax
authorities on the earnings made at Ethiopia.
Accordingly, the plaintiff has prayed for passing a decree for a sum of Rs. 18,29,254/ in his favour and
against the defendant.
5. The defendant filed the written statement contending that suit has been filed for malafide purpose for
extracting money from the defendant without any cause of action. It is stated that the plaintiff has
misused his position on several occasions by exercising powers not vested CS No. 433/12 Krishna
Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 5 of 40 in him resulting in huge
financial implication on the client with respect to the present project. It is stated that plaintiff used to
act as engineer's representative till 27.08.2008 as per powers delegated to him as per provisions of the
contract. The plaintiff, however, violated his powers on several occasions from the date of his
appointment damaging the implementation of the project and putting the engineer and supervision
consultant in wrong standing with the client. It is further alleged that the plaintiff has also been
argumentative and abusive. Plaintiff has been guilty of insubordination and gross indiscipline and
misconduct in the presence of other employees of the defendant. It is further averred that the clients of
the defendant at Ethiopia being dissatisfied by the performance of the plaintiff asked for the removal of
the plaintiff leaving no option with the defendant except to remove him. It is stated that due to the
aforesaid dissatisfaction on the performance of the plaintiff, the defendant was constrained to invoke
clause 15, more specifically sub clause (ii) to remove the plaintiff.
5.1. The defendant has also given the details of the misconduct of the plaintiff in para 10 of preliminary
objections of written statement which are briefly summarized as under:
a) The plaintiff through letter dated 29.05.2008 written to the contractor changed and instructed 3.5m
traffic lane width in hilly section, making the road width as 7.0m which was not within the CS No.
433/12 Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 6 of 40 powers of
Resident Engineer and had additional financial implication and the plaintiff has not taken any approval
from the employer.
b) The plaintiff sent a proposal to the client vide letter dated 03.06.2008 changing contract from 'gravel
shoulder' to 'paved shoulder' which had several drawbacks.
c) The plaintiff did not take any action on the contractor's letter dated 02.04.2008 which has a huge
financial implication.
d) The plaintiff instructed the contractor to excavate 4m deep silt for problem of high water table
without considering technical specifications and forced the clients to bear additional financial burden.
e) The plaintiff accepted and agreed to construct Stone Masonry Retaining wall and to provide catch
water drain at the same time without consulting the designated experts in the field favouring the
contractor of huge financial gain.
f) The plaintiff conveyed approval of the centreline coordinate of road alignment vide letter dated
29.05.2008 without any information to the designated experts.
g) The plaintiff allowed the construction scheme to favour the contractor.
h) The plaintiff even after removal vide intimation dated 27.08.2008 CS No. 433/12 Krishna Kumar
Gupta Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 7 of 40 approved cement concrete design mix
on 29.08.2008 which he was not authorized to do so and this mix design did not satisfy the target
strength criteria as per contract.
i) The plaintiff vide letter dated 17.07.2008 recommended rock fill over expansive soil which was not
justified with any document.
j) The plaintiff considered the contractor's rejected extension of time violating the decision of the
engineer and essence of the contract.
k) The plaintiff approved design changes in the contract which he was not authorized to do so.
l) The plaintiff changed various soil and rock slopes of cutting and filling contrary to the contractual
provisions.
m) The plaintiff did not submit the documents during his stay at site.
5.2. It is further contended by the defendant that the plaintiff who was repeatedly requested to improve
his performance, failed to improve his performance and due to dissatisfaction of the clients, the
plaintiff was removed from the services. It has been denied that the plaintiff has not been paid his dues.
It is stated that legitimate and legal dues of the plaintiff has been settled. The defendant has denied that
the plaintiff has suffered any mental agony or that he has been wrongly terminated. The defendant has
also denied that the plaintiff is entitled to CS No. 433/12 Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea
Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 8 of 40 the amount as claimed in the plaint. The other contents of
the plaint are also stated to be wrong and denied and the defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit.
6. The plaintiff has filed replication to the written statement in which averments made in the plaint
have been reiterated and those made in the written statement have been controverted.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this
court vide order dated 23.04.2011 :
1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP
2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of money as prayed for ? OPP
3.Relief
8. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and filed his evidence by way of
affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A wherein he reiterated the averments made in the plaint. During his
deposition, he has also placed on record the copy of appointment letter issued by Inter Continental
Consultants & Technocrafts Pvt. Ltd. dated 25.01.2006 as Ex. PW1/1, appointment letter issued by
Louis Berger Group INC dated 03.08.2006 and letter of termination of contract dated 26.12.2007 as
Ex. PW1/2 (Colly), appointment letter dated 16.02.2008 issued by Theme Engineering Services Pvt.
Ltd. as Ex PW1/3, letters dated 11.02.2008 and 25.02.2008 issued by the defendant as Ex. PW1/4 CS
No. 433/12 Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 9 of 40 (Colly),
the appointment letter dated 10.03.2008 issued by the defendant as Ex. PW1/5, copy of email dated
19.08.2008, termination letter dated 27.08.2008 and another letter dated 27.08.2008 issued by the
defendant as Ex. PW1/6 (Colly), copy of email dated 10.09.2008 and the medical certificate dated
02.09.2008 as Ex. PW1/7 (Colly), copy of handing/taking over charge dated 01.09.2008 as Ex. PW1/8,
medical report dated 20.09.2008 as Ex. PW1/9, copy of railway ticket as Ex. PW1/10, legal notice
dated 10.10.2008 and reply thereof dated 21.11.2008 as Ex. PW1/11 (Colly) .
9. On the other hand, defendant examined its General Manager (HR) Sh. C.A. Wilson as DW1 who
filed his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. DW1/A wherein he has deposed more or less as per
the averments made in the written statement.
10. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. I have also gone
through the written submissions filed by the defendant.
11. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has vehemently argued that plaintiff is seeking declaration u/s 34 of
Specific Relief Act which cannot be granted as in the private employment, the plaintiff cannot claim
the reinstatement in the job and contract cannot be specifically enforced and hence the present suit is
liable to be dismissed. He further argued that the plaintiff can only ask for damages for breach of
contract and the plaintiff CS No. 433/12 Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia Pvt.
Ltd. Page 10 of 40 in the entire plaint has not alleged any breach of contract and as such there is no
breach of contract of the assignment letter dated 10.03.2008 and hence the plaintiff is not entitled to
any relief. He also vehemently argued that this being a contract of private employment, which is
governed by the terms and conditions of the appointment letter and, therefore, there is no scope of
applicability of principles of nature justice in the present case. The Ld. Counsel for defendant also
argued that the plaintiff cannot claim the fixed term of the employment and the defendant has
terminated the services of the plaintiff by invoking clause 15 (i) and
(ii) of the contract and therefore plaintiff cannot claim the salary for the remainder period of his
employment. He argued that the plaintiff has failed to take the steps for mitigating damages and at the
most the plaintiff can claim two months salary as per clause 16 of the contract. In support of his
contentions, the Ld. Counsel for defendant has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi reported in L.M. Khosla Vs. Thai Airways International Public Company Ltd. & Anr2012
Indlaw Del 1641, A.R. Joshi Vs. State Bank of India1977 Indlaw Del 27, Satya Narain Garg Vs. DCM
Ltd.2012 (187) DLT 25, GE Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Tarun Bhargava - 2012
(190) DLT 185 and Juliana Loieau Vs. British High Commission2012 (130) DRJ 552.
CS No. 433/12 Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 11 of 40
12. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that plaintiff is not seeking the decree of
declaration for granting the relief of reinstatement in the job, but the plaintiff is seeking only the
damages on account of illegal termination of contract. He submitted that unless the plaintiff pleads and
succeeds in proving that his termination from the job was illegal and not as per the clause 15 (i) and (ii)
of the assignment letter, as invoked by the defendant, the plaintiff cannot claim the damages and that is
why the plaintiff is seeking decree of declaration. Ld. Counsel further argued that the defendant has
terminated the services of the plaintiff illegally and arbitrarily without being affording him an
opportunity of being heard and thereby violated the principles of natural justice and hence the plaintiff
is entitled to damages on account of illegal termination from the services. He also argued that contract
of the service was for fixed term for 30 months and the defendant has terminated the services on
unjustifiable grounds and by invoking clause 15 (i) and (ii) which the defendant has not been able to
prove and therefore the plaintiff is entitled for remuneration for remainder period of his tenure towards
the compensation and the loss of earnings. He further submitted that the plaintiff himself has restricted
his claim by 30% in a reasonable manner which the defendant is liable to pay along with interest.
13. On the basis of material available on record, my issuewise findings are as under: CS No. 433/12
Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 12 of 40
14. Both the issues are taken up together for discussions being interlinked. It is not in dispute that
plaintiff was offered job of Resident Engineer by the defendant for construction and supervision of a
road upgrading project at Ethiopia as per terms and conditions of the appointment letter dated
10.03.2008 Ex. PW1/5. It is also not in dispute that the pursuant to the appointment letter Ex. PW1/5,
the plaintiff joined the defendant company as Resident Engineer and left for Ethiopia in the month of
March, 2008 and started working on the project assigned to him. As per the appointment letter Ex.
PW1/5, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant company for a period of 30 months. However, the
defendant terminated the services of the plaintiff vide termination letter dated 27.08.2008 Ex. PW1/6
(Colly) by invoking clause 15 (i) and (ii) of the appointment letter Ex. PW1/5. The plaintiff has
claimed that his termination from the services was illegal and not as per the terms and condition of the
appointment letter Ex. PW1/5.
15. It is relevant here to reproduce the clause 15 (i) and (ii) of the appointment letter Ex. PW1/5, which
is not in dispute.
15. Dismissal:
(i) Any instances of improper conduct, gross negligence or abandonment of your position before
satisfactory competition of the assignment shall constitute sufficient grounds for immediate dismissal.
In such an event, payment of salary and all other payments shall cease as CS No. 433/12 Krishna
Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 13 of 40 of the date of this dismissal,
and no payment shall be made for homeward travel or transfer of personal possessions. Improper
conduct shall be deemed to include direct or indirect participation by you in any political activity in the
country of assignment or in any professional or business undertakings or activity that would conflict
with the requirements of your role.
(ii) In case the client agency asks for removal from the position for whatever reasons you will
relinquish your post immediately and return to India.
16. The defendant has claimed that the plaintiff has misused his position by exercising powers not
vested in him and the client agency has conveyed dissatisfaction on the performance of the plaintiff in
discharge of his duties as per requirement of project. Apart from the non performance and
unprofessional behaviour, the plaintiff has also been discourteous to the Managing Director which
tantamounts to misconduct and gross indiscipline, which forced the defendant to invoke clause 15 (i)
and (ii) of the agreement Ex. PW1/5, thereby terminating the services of the plaintiff.
17. Now, in order to find out as to whether the defendant has been successful in proving the allegations
that the performance of the plaintiff was not satisfactory or that he has violated his powers or that he
was guilty of gross indiscipline, misbehavior and misconduct, the evidence led by the defendant is
relevant. The defendant has examined its General Manager (HR) Sh. C.A. Wilson as DW1 who in his
examinationinchief has deposed more or less on the similar lines as averred in written statement.
However, his crossexamination is relevant to evaluate whether the defendant has been able to
substantiate the allegations. The relevant crossexamination of DW1 in this regard is reproduced as
under: "I have neither filed nor brought any document/ letter issued by the Client or by the World Bank
Funding Agency to the plaintiff about violating and exceeding his powers between March 2008 upto
August 2008 and there is no record to the effect. I as an employer has not issued any written letter or
communication to the plaintiff reprimanding him, intimating him from the date of his appointment till
termination about misusing or exceeding his powers as an employee. It is correct that monthly
meetings were held at Ethiopia between the Client, plaintiff and contractor. In those monthly meetings
the issue of misuse of powers of the plaintiff was discussed and came up for consideration but it was
not recorded in the minutes of meetings. I was not present in those monthly meetings. It is correct that
whatever was discussed or deliberated in those monthly meetings, same was recorded in the minutes of
those meetings. I have never visited Ethiopia, where the plaintiff was working. I never was a
participant in the meetings that were held to discuss the development, construction taking place at
Ethiopia. I never issued any letter or show cause notice to the plaintiff during his employment about his
becoming argumentative and abusive. No chargesheet was issued to the plaintiff on ground of his mis
conduct. An internal enquiry was conducted by the defendant about the misconduct of the plaintiff. We
never asked for any explanation from plaintiff nor the plaintiff was asked to appear in that internal
enquiry. I am not sure of the date of that internal enquiry but the same was conducted towards the end
of July and beginning of CS No. 433/12 Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia Pvt.
Ltd. Page 15 of 40 August 2008. During that internal enquiry the imputation against the plaintiff were
found to be true. The plaintiff was terminated on the basis of aforesaid findings of the internal enquiry.
I have neither filed nor brought to the court the proceedings of those internal enquiry. I am not sure
whether the defendant has any documentary evidence to the effect that plaintiff has made illegally
financial gain during his employment with the defendant. It is correct that neither I have brought
aforesaid mentioned documentary evidence in the court nor I have filed the same in the court. We have
letters addressed to the defendant written by the Clients expressing their displeasure about the
performance of the plaintiff and asking about the removal of the plaintiff. I have filed the photocopy of
the letter dated 16.02.2009 filed in the record of the case. We do not have any letter issued from our
client showing their displeasure about the performance of the plaintiff or seeking his removal during
the period of employment of plaintiff w.e.f. March 2008 till August 2008 with the defendant. Vol.
There were oral instructions from the client. I as an employer have also not issued any letter to the
plaintiff during his employment with the defendant complaining about the displeasure shown by the
clients about the performance of the plaintiff and asking for his removal. I have not issued any letter to
the plaintiff during this period advising him to improve his performance. We do not have any letter
from our client saying that loss has been caused to them at Ethiopia due to the working of the plaintiff.
We have document to show that contractor was to be paid an additional amount on account of changes
made by the plaintiff but I have neither brought the said document nor filed the same in court. We have
documents to show that clients have made adverse remarks for a technical wrong doing against the
plaintiff but I have neither brought the said document nor filed the same in court."
18. From the aforesaid statement of DW1, it emerges out that the defendant has utterly failed to prove
that the plaintiff has ever violated his powers or was lacking in performance or that his performance
was not satisfactory and he has been guilty of negligence and misconduct during his tenure which has
resulted in invoking the clause 15 (i) and (ii) of the appointment letter Ex. PW1/5 by the defendant.
The contentions raised by the defendant in para 10 of Preliminary Objections of the written statement,
wherein it has given the illustrations of the plaintiff exceeding his powers, have remained
unsubstantiated.
19. It is evident from the aforesaid crossexamination of DW1 that though the defendant has alleged
that the performance of plaintiff was not satisfactory and the client had expressed their dissatisfaction
in writing to the defendant about the performance of the plaintiff on many occasions, but nothing has
been placed on record by the defendant to show that its client has ever issued any letter to the
defendant about dis satisfactory performance of the plaintiff or violation of powers by the plaintiff.
Even the defendant has not issued any letter intimating the plaintiff that he had been exercising powers
not vested in him or misusing his position. It is also apparent that monthly meetings were held at
Ethiopia between the Client, plaintiff and contractor. DW1 though stated in his crossexamination that
in those monthly meetings the issue of misuse of powers of the plaintiff was discussed, but he admitted
that it CS No. 433/12 Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 17 of
40 was not recorded in the minutes of meetings. He even was not present in those monthly meetings.
DW1 has further admitted that whatever was discussed or deliberated in those monthly meetings, same
was recorded in the minutes of those meetings. But no such minutes of the meetings were brought by
the DW1 during his evidence nor has been produced on record by the defendant to show that misuse of
powers of the plaintiff was discussed in the monthly meetings held at Ethiopia.
20. DW1 though has also claimed that an internal inquiry was conducted by the defendant about the
misconduct of the plaintiff and the allegations levelled against the plaintiff were found to be true in the
said internal inquiry and on the basis of findings of said internal inquiry, the defendant terminated the
services of the plaintiff. However, no such proceedings of alleged internal inquiry were brought or
produced on record to show that any such internal inquiry was ever conducted by the defendant about
the misconduct of the plaintiff leaving aside the fact that the plaintiff was never asked for explanation
nor he was asked to appear in the said internal inquiry as admitted by DW1 in his crossexamination.
21. The defendant has also claimed that due to technical wrongs done by the plaintiff during his
employment while exceeding his powers, the cost of the project was increased and the contractor was
paid additional amount. DW1 in his crossexamination categorically stated that they have document to
show that contractor was to be paid an CS No. 433/12 Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea Associates
South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 18 of 40 additional amount on account of changes made by the plaintiff but
he has not filed the same on the record. He further stated that they have documents to show that clients
have made adverse remarks for a technical wrong doing against the plaintiff but again the same has
neither been produced nor proved on record. Therefore, despite being in possession of the aforesaid
letters, which could have thrown light on the misconduct and exceeding the powers by the plaintiffs,
have been withheld by the defendant and therefore an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against
the defendant. In the absence of any documentary evidence, this contention of the defendant that
contractor was paid additional amount due to technical wrongs done by the plaintiff also remained
unsubstantiated.
22. A question was put to DW1 that whether he has filed any document/ letter written by the client or
by the World Bank Funding Agency to the plaintiff or to the defendant stating the violation of powers
by the plaintiff on several occasions from the date of engagement, he replied that there is only one
letter dated 16.02.2009, which is a photocopy and is on the record of the case. However, the photocopy
of the letter dated 16.02.2009 cannot be relied upon as same is not duly proved. Even in his
examinationinchief, the DW1 has not relied upon the said letter dated 16.02.2009. Therefore, it cannot
be said that defendant has been able to prove that client had complained about the violation of CS No.
433/12 Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 19 of 40 powers by
the plaintiff in writing vide letter dated 16.02.2009.
23. In the later part of his crossexamination, DW1 also claims that they have letters addressed to the
defendant written by the client expressing their displeasure about the performance of the plaintiff and
asking about the removal of the plaintiff. But no such letter has been placed on record by the
defendant. If the defendant was having any such letter, it should have been produced on record to
substantiate its claim that the clients have shown dissatisfaction about the performance of the plaintiff.
But despite being in power and possession of the said letters, as claimed by DW1, same have not been
produced on record by the defendant. Therefore, again an adverse inference is liable to be drawn
against the defendant. Defendant has also failed to show that pursuant to receiving of letters by the
clients showing their displeasure about the performance of the plaintiff, the defendant has ever issued
any letter to the plaintiff intimating about the displeasure shown by the clients about his performance
or issued any letter to the plaintiff advising him to improve his performance.
24. From the aforesaid discussions, it is crystal clear that defendant has not been able to prove any
single iota of misconduct of the plaintiff during his tenure as averred in the examination in chief of
DW1 or illustrated in para 10 of the written statement. CS No. 433/12 Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s
Lea Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 20 of 40
25. On the other hand, the plaintiff firmly stood on his stand as taken in the plaint and examination in
chief while appearing in the witness box as PW1. During his crossexamination, his testimony remained
unshaken and nothing material could be extracted by the defendant. In the crossexamination, PW1
though admitted that on 03.06.2008 he sent a proposal to the client for changing of contract
specification from "gravel shoulder" to "paved shoulder", but he voluntarily stated that it was on the
demand of client ERA (Ethiopian Road Authority) and in consultation with the defendant. Not a single
suggestion was given to PW1 that it was not done by the plaintiff on the demand of the client or in the
consultation with the defendant. He was suggested that he gave any warning to suspend the work to the
contractor on 02.04.2008, which he denied. However, nothing has been placed on record by the
defendant to show that plaintiff has ever written to the contractor to suspend the work on 02.04.2008.
PW1 has categorically stated that he conveyed his approval of the central line coordinate of road
alignment from Km 328.000 to 366.000 vide letter dated 29.05.2008. Voluntarily, he stated that it was
done after the coordinates were prepared by the highway engineer of the defendant and he approved
the same. No further suggestion was given to PW1 that coordinates were not prepared by the highway
engineer of the defendant. He was suggested that because of this change the contractor was to be paid
much more than the agreed CS No. 433/12 Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia
Pvt. Ltd. Page 21 of 40 amount and this resulted in additional payment, which he denied. However, the
defendant has not placed on record anything to show that contractor was to be paid much more than the
agreed amount or that the cost of project was increased due to approval given by the plaintiff for
change of central line of road alignment vide letter dated 29.05.2008 and this claim of the defendant
has remained unsubstantiated as discussed herein above.
26. A question was put to PW1 that he approved the cement concrete design mix after his termination
to which he replied that he was given the termination letter on 28.08.2008 and he prepared the charge
paper and handed over the charge on 01.09.2008. Voluntarily he stated that the concrete mix was used
by the defendant in the field. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff has handed over the charge on
01.09.2008 as also duly admitted by DW1 in his crossexamination. The defendant has not been able to
show that plaintiff has illegally made any financial gain from the defendant as DW1 stated in his cross‐
examination that he is not sure whether the defendant has any documentary evidence to the effect that
plaintiff has made illegally financial gain during his employment with the defendant. Therefore, even if
after termination vide letter dated 27.08.2008 the plaintiff approved the cement concrete design mix, it
cannot be said that any prejudice is caused to the defendant. Plaintiff has also voluntarily stated that the
concrete mix was used by the defendant in CS No. 433/12 Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea
Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 22 of 40 the field. No further suggestion was given to him that
concrete mix was not used by the defendant in the field. There is also nothing on record that the client
has raised any protest against this approval of cement concrete design mix by the plaintiff and
consequently any loss to the defendant or to the client.
27. PW1 has also categorically stated that he has never given any extension of time to the contractors
and has never recommended any extension of time to the contractor. In reply to a question put to him,
he categorically stated that he did not change various soil and rock slopes of cutting and filling on
28.07.2008 and 28.08.2008. Voluntarily he stated that he approved the design as per the requirement at
site of work and as per specification. He was not further suggested that same was not approved as per
the requirement at site of work and as per specification. It is also to be noted that DW1 in the cross‐
examination categorically admitted that a monthly progress report was being made regarding the
progress of said project. He also admitted that the copy of the said progress report was also sent to the
World Bank and in the said progress report the plaintiff has been mentioning about the specification of
the existing road with their width in the hilly area etc. If that was so, then if the plaintiff had done any
technical wrong or had not carried out the work as per specification, then there would have been some
complaints or adverse remarks against the plaintiff in those monthly progress report, but CS No.
433/12 Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 23 of 40 no such
complaint or adverse remarks against the plaintiff has been produced on record by the defendant which
again falsifies the case of the defendant that plaintiff has done any technical wrongs during his tenure.
28. The plaintiff was also suggested that Ethiopian authority was not satisfied with his work, which he
denied. But as already discussed herein above, there is nothing on record to show that Ethiopian
authority has ever expressed its displeasure about the performance of the plaintiff. PW1 was further
suggested that he has been terminated because of act of his insubordination to Mr. Pinaki Rai
Chaudhary, which he again denied. It is not understandable that what does insubordination mean to the
defendant. The defendant has not elaborated that in what kind of insubordination the plaintiff had
indulged during the visit of Mr. Pinaki Rai Chaudhary, the MD of defendant, which tantamounts to
misconduct, misbehaviour or gross indiscipline.
29. Though DW1 in his examinationinchief claimed that plaintiff was argumentative and abusive using
filthy language during his tenure at Ethiopia and was also engaged in gross insubordination of the
Managing Director of the defendant company during his visit to Ethiopia in the month of April, 2008.
But, this claim of DW1 cannot be accepted as he admitted in his crossexamination that he has never
visited Ethiopia where the plaintiff was working nor he was a participant in the meetings held to
discuss the development, construction at Ethiopia. Therefore, the CS No. 433/12 Krishna Kumar Gupta
Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 24 of 40 statement of DW1 that the plaintiff has
been argumentative and abusive is hearsay evidence and not substantiated and proved as per law.
30. On the other hand, the plaintiff in his plaint as well as in the examination in chief categorically
stated that in the month of April, 2008 Sh. Pinaki Rai Chaudhary, MD along with other junior
engineers visited Ethiopia and directed him to prepare and serve food using his resources to all the
engineers at his residence on the payment basis till they remained at work site, which he politely
declined stating that he would honour all the accompanying persons for some couple of days, but not
for all the times as his wife was also scheduled to reach Ethiopia. The plaintiff has further stated that
this incident was taken by the MD of the defendant as an insult and he pressurized the plaintiff to
resign from the services and consequently the services of the plaintiff was terminated. This part of
testimony of plaintiff has gone unrebutted and uncontroverted. Not a single suggestion was put to PW1
in his crossexamination that no such incident had ever occurred. It is undisputed fact that Sh. Pinaki
Rai Chaudhary, MD of the defendant visited Ethiopia in the month of April, 2008 as also duly admitted
by DW1 in his crossexamination. The plaintiff has raised certain allegations that Mr. Pinaki Rai
Choudhary during his visit at Ethiopia insisted the plaintiff for providing food continuously to the
engineers at his residence and when the plaintiff refused to do so, Mr. Pinaki Rai Choudhary got
annoyed and became CS No. 433/12 Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia Pvt.
Ltd. Page 25 of 40 revengeful and started pressurizing the plaintiff to resign from the services, on
which there is no crossexamination at all by the defendant and therefore this part of testimony of the
plaintiff is deemed to be admitted by the defendant.
31. Though, the defendant has contended in the written arguments that the plaintiff has not examined
any independent witness to prove that he has not misbehaved with MD of the defendant in April, 2008.
However, this contention of the defendant is fallacious. It was for the defendant to prove that the
plaintiff has indulged in insubordination and was argumentative and abusive which the defendant has
failed to prove. The defendant has not examined its MD Sh. Pinaki Rai Choudhary to prove the
aforesaid allegations and also to rebut the allegations of the plaintiff regarding the incident of demand
of food by Mr. Pinaki Rai Choudhary and refusal by the plaintiff which was taken as an insult by him
and thereafter the defendant was revengeful and consequently illegally removed the plaintiff from the
services. It has come on record from the crossexamination of DW1 that Sh. Pinaki Rai Choudhary is
still working with the defendant company and is based in Delhi. Therefore, Sh. Pinaki Rai Choudhary,
was the best witness to controvert the aforesaid allegation and incident as illustrated by the plaintiff
and to prove that the plaintiff has misbehaved with him by disobeying his directions. But the defendant
has not examined its MD Sh. Pinaki Rai CS No. 433/12 Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea Associates
South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 26 of 40 Choudhary and withheld the best evidence despite his availability
for the reasons best known to the defendant.
32. From the aforesaid discussions, it has been duly proved by the plaintiff that during his tenure at
Ethiopia, he had performed his duties efficiently and there was no complaint regarding his performance
and further there was no adverse remarks of the client. On the other hand, the defendant has miserably
failed to prove that performance of the plaintiff was poor and not as per the requirement of the project
or that he has violated his powers. The defendant has also failed to prove that the plaintiff was found
guilty of insubordination, refusal and disrespect to the MD of the defendant Sh. Pinaki Rai Chaudhary
and same constituted an act of gross indiscipline in terms of clause 12 and was dismissed in accordance
with clause 15 (i) and (ii) of the agreement Ex. PW1/5. Hence, it is held that the services of the
plaintiff was not validly terminated by the defendant by invoking clause 15 (i) and (ii) of the
appointment letter Ex. PW1/5 and accordingly the termination of the plaintiff vide letter Ex.
27.08.2008 Ex. PW1/6 is held illegal. Consequently, now it has to be seen that what relief the plaintiff
is entitled to.
33. It would be relevant here to go through the law which governs the contract in private employment.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its catena of judgments as also relied upon by the Ld. Counsel CS
No. 433/12 Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 27 of 40 for the
defendant (cited supra) held that, "A contract of private employment is not similar to the public
employment and in such private employment there is no scope of applicability of the principles of
administrative law/public law."
34. The Hon'ble High Court in its judgment in case of Shri Satya Narain Garg (Supra) held that, "In
case of private employment, the employers are fully justified in taking steps for termination of
services, if it finds that the employee is not upto the mark. Principles applicable in public law domain
do not apply with respect to employees in private employment. Employment in private sector is
governed by the terms and conditions of employment, and unless the termination is shown to be in
violation of the terms and conditions of employment, it cannot be said that the termination is illegal." It
was further held that, "Even if there is illegal termination of services, it is not possible to grant
damages as claimed inasmuch as the principles of mitigation of damages squarely applies. As per this
principle of mitigation of damages enshrined in S. 73 of the Contract Act, 1872 even if an employee is
illegally terminated from services, he cannot sit at home and he must take sufficient steps to procure
alternative employment." The Hon'ble High Court after relying upon the aforesaid judgment in case of
Satya Narain Garg and other judgments held in GE Capital Transportion Transportation Financial CS
No. 433/12 Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 28 of 40 Services
Ltd. Vs. Tarun Bhargava (supra) that, "If the contract of employment is for a specif term, the servant
would in that event be entitled to the whole of the salary, benefits, etc, which he would have earned had
he continued in the employ of the master for the full term of the contract, subject of course to
mitigation of damages by way of seeking alternative employment. It was also held by the Hon'ble High
Court in its judgment passed in the case of L.M. Khosla (supra) that, "A contract of employment which
provides termination of services by one month's notice, then, at best the employee will only be entitled
to one month's pay in terms of the employment contract. An employee is not entitled to any relief of
continuation in services or pay with consequential benefits for alleged remaining period of services till
the date of his superannuation."
35. The propositions which can be culled out from the ratio of aforesaid judgments are:
Public Policy principles or administrative law principles do not apply to private

employment and the employer can terminate the services of the employee without
affording him an opportunity of being heard.
Where there is no fixed period of employment there can be termination simplicitor If the contract
of employment provides for one month's notice, CS No. 433/12 Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea
Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 29 of 40 then, the maximum entitlement of damages of an
employee who alleges illegal termination is one month's pay.
If there is fixed term contract and there is violation of the terms of the contract while terminating the
employment, the employee is only entitled to reasonable damages by applying principle of mitigation
of damages and and if there is no breach of contract he cannot seek reinstatement or specific
performance of the contract.
36. As such, it is apparent that in contracts of private employment, there does not arise the issue of
applicability of administrative law principles and therefore contention of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that
defendant did not adhere to principle of natural justice while terminating the services of the plaintiff is
not sustainable.
37. Though the termination of the plaintiff was not justifiable by invoking clause 15 (i) and (ii) of the
appointment letter and the defendant has not been able to prove mis conduct, negligence and poor
performance of the plaintiff and termination of the plaintiff has been held illegal, still it is prerogative
of the defendant to keep the plaintiff in service or to remove him and the defendant cannot be
compelled to reinstate the plaintiff in the services. The remedy of the plaintiff lies in seeking damages
for breach of contract. As also argued by the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that the plaintiff by way of
present suit is not seeking CS No. 433/12 Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia
Pvt. Ltd. Page 30 of 40 reinstatement in the job, but he is seeking damages on account of breach of
contract as plaintiff was illegally terminated from the services. Though the Ld. Counsel for defendant
vehemently argued that plaintiff cannot be held entitled for damages also because there is no single
whisper in the plaint that there is any breach of contract. However, I do not find that this argument
carries any force. The plaintiff may not have specifically used the term 'breach of contract' in the plaint,
but essentially by giving a meaningful interpretation and grievance of the plaintiff, it is apparent that
the plaintiff is claiming that his services has been illegally terminated in breach of contract and
therefore he is entitled to the salary for the remainder period of his service towards compensation and
loss of earnings as it was a contract of fixed period of 30 months.
38. Now, the question arises what damages the plaintiff is entitled to. Though the plaintiff has claimed
that it was fixed term contract and he was illegally terminated before completing his term for 30
months and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to salary for remaining period of 25 months towards loss
of earnings. The plaintiff is seeking 30% of the total amount which would have been paid to him by the
defendant had he not been terminated. The Ld. Counsel for plaintiff vehemently argued that the
plaintiff did not get any alternative job after being terminated by the defendant and he remained
unemployed and this part of his testimony has gone unrebutted and hence the defendant is CS No.
433/12 Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 31 of 40 liable to pay
the salary for the remainder period of 25 months. To fortify his arguments, the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff
has relied upon various judgments reported in Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak
Mahavidyalaya & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 6767 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 6778 of 2012, K.G.
Hiranandani Vs. Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1969 Bombay 373 and
D.K. Yadav Vs. JMA Industries Ltd. (1993) 3 SCC 259.
39. In order to prove the entitlement of the plaintiff for the salary of the remainder period, the plaintiff
is required to prove that he did not get an alternative employment after being terminated from the
services and he took steps to mitigate the damages and therefore he is entitled to the salary for the
remainder period.
40. In view of law laid down in the case laws relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for defendant cited supra,
that even if the employee is illegally terminated from the services, the damages cannot be granted as
claimed by him as principle of mitigation of the damages squarely applies and he cannot sit at home
and must prove that he has taken sufficient steps to procure alternative employment.
41. Though, the plaintiff stated in his statement that after his illegal removal from the services, he is
unemployed despite his best efforts to obtain alternative employment matching his status and caliber.
However, except making this bald averment, the plaintiff has not led any evidence that in which
organization or company and during which period and for which post he had applied. In the absence of
any such details or any evidence that the plaintiff despite making efforts could not get the alternative
employment, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has taken sufficient steps for mitigation of damages.
The self serving statement of the plaintiff is of no help to him. It has been held in Satya Narain Garg
Vs. DCM Ltd. (supra) that, "The self serving averments cannot be held as discharge of onus of proof of
mitigation of damages in the absence of any details as to which companies or firms or persons he
applied to, and on which dates, and for what position, and for what salary and also the details as to why
he could not obtain the alternative employment."
42. Further, in addition to above, it is not believable that the plaintiff could not get any employment
after being terminated by the defendant in view of facts averred in the plaint that plaintiff has served
for 30 years the Govt. of Haryana and retired as consultant engineer and thereafter he had been getting
the offer from one company after another. After his retirement, he worked with Intercontinental
Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. and thereafter he was offered the job by Louis Berger Group
which he declined. Thereafter he was being offered a job by Theme Engineering Services which he
again declined and thereafter the defendant appointed him as Resident Engineer. It shows that plaintiff
CS No. 433/12 Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 33 of 40 was
getting jobs and in fact there was no difficulty in procuring the employment due to rich experience of
the plaintiff in the civil engineering.
43. So far the authorities relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff are concerned, in case of Deepali
Gundu Surwase (supra), there was no contract of private employment and it was a case of statutory
employment being governed by Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
Rules 1981 framed u/s 16 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
Regulation Act 1977. In the said case, it was held that the charges levelled against the appellant were
frivolous and the inquiry was held in gross violation of the rules of natural justice and in those facts,
the appellant was held entitled to wages for the period during which she was forcibly kept out of
service by the management of the school. However, as discussed herein above, there is no scope of
applicability of principles of natural justice in case of private employment, as held by the Hon'ble High
Court in its number of judgments as discussed supra and therefore this authority is not applicable in the
facts and circumstances of the present case.
44. Similarly, in K.G. Hiranandani Vs. Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it
was case of a employment for a fixed period and there was breach of contract by the employers and the
issue involved was whether the employee is entitled to salary for CS No. 433/12 Krishna Kumar Gupta
Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 34 of 40 whole of unexpired period of service. The
burden to prove that what steps were taken by the employee to mitigate the damages in order to avail
the salary for remainder period was on the employee. In the said case, the plaintiff has been able to
prove that he had taken reasonable steps to mitigate the loss arising from the breach of contract on the
part of the defendants and hence plaintiff was granted salary for unexpired period. But in the present
case, as discussed herein above, except the self serving statement of the plaintiff which is bereft of the
necessary details and in view of the fact that the plaintiff was getting the jobs one after another within a
very short span of time, it cannot be said that the plaintiff took steps to mitigate the damages.
Therefore, in the facts of the present case, this authority is of no help to the plaintiff.
45. The case of D.K. Yadav Vs. JMA Industries Ltd. (1993) 3 SCC 259 deals with the labour law
wherein the right of employer to terminate service under standing orders must be in consonance with
principles of natural justice. But the case in hand deals with the private employment wherein principles
of natural justice has no role to play. For this reason, this authority is also not applicable in the facts
and circumstances of the present case. Therefore in the absence of any evidence, the plaintiff cannot be
said to be entitled for the salary for the remainder period of his service and this claim of the plaintiff is
rejected. CS No. 433/12 Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 35 of
40
46. As per clause 16 of appointment letter Ex. PW1/5, notice period of termination of service is two
months gross salary which either of the party is liable to pay. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to two
months gross salary as contemplated in clause 16 of the appointment letter. As per Ex.PW1/5 one
month gross salary of the plaintiff is as under:
IC salary: Rs. 20,000/per month:
Overseas Per diem: USD 2200/ per month which comes at
Rs. 99,000/ per month
Reimbursement for fooding ETB 4500/ per month
& local traveling which comes at Rs. 20,250/ per
month
Two months gross salary of the plaintiff comes at Rs.2,78,500/, which the plaintiff is entitled to recover
from the defendant.
47. The plaintiff has also claimed that he was not paid his legal dues as discussed in para no. 3 which
includes salary for the month of August, 2008, air ticket fare, transportation charges totaling to Rs.
1,36,754/. Though the defendant stated that all the legal dues stands settled with the plaintiff, but in the
crossexamination, DW 1 categorically admitted that for the month of August, they have not paid any
dues to the plaintiff. He also admitted that they have not provided CS No. 433/12 Krishna Kumar
Gupta Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 36 of 40 even the return ticket to plaintiff and
his wife and his place from the place of his posting to the nearest airport at Ethiopia. He further
admitted that they have not provided to plaintiff any air ticket from Mumbai to Delhi and from Delhi to
Karnal, his native place. He stated that he does not remember whether the taxi bill of the plaintiff from
Karnal to Delhi airport was not settled during the period of his employment.
48. In view of aforesaid statement of DW1 and in the absence of any documentary evidence on record
by the defendant that all the legal dues of the plaintiff were settled by the defendant, the defendant has
failed to prove that all legal dues of the plaintiff were settled and hence the plaintiff is entitled to
recover legal dues to the tune of Rs. 1,36,754/ from the defendant.
49. Though, it is argued by the Ld. Counsel for defendant that plaintiff is not entitled to air fare as he
has not completed one year and after being terminated within a period of 5 months, he is not entitled to
airfare from Ethiopia to India as per clause 6 of the appointment letter Ex. PW1/5. But as discussed
herein above, the services of the plaintiff was illegally terminated by the defendant, hence the plaintiff
cannot be deprived of airfare charges from Ethiopia to Mumbai and this contention of the defendant is
rejected.
50. The plaintiff has also claimed Rs. 5,00,000/ on account of compensation for harassment,
humiliation and mental agony. The plaintiff CS No. 433/12 Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea
Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 37 of 40 has contended that he was posted at too far place at
Ethiopia and he was ceremoniously thrown away from the job which caused immense emotional pain
and injury to the plaintiff and even the return tickets were not arranged and all the attendants from the
house of the plaintiff were withdrawn. The inhuman attitude of the defendant and humiliation suffered
by the plaintiff took a toll on his health and therefore, the plaintiff has claimed the compensation for
loss of mental agony and harassment and humiliation by the defendant.
51. It cannot be lost sight that the plaintiff was posted at too far place at abroad in Ethiopia. The
services of the plaintiff were terminated all of sudden vide letter dated 27.08.2008 Ex. PW1/6. It has
also come on record that the defendant did not arrange the air tickets nor paid the air fare charges to the
plaintiff from the place of posting to nearby airport for returning back to India. He must have
undergone trauma due to his sudden termination of services, more so when he was posted at too far in
abroad away from his social circle. The plaintiff has also placed on record the medical records to show
that how the sudden termination of service took a toll on his health. It can also be presumed that in
securing an alternative employment, the plaintiff must have spent some time. Hence, plaintiff has to be
reasonably compensated. Therefore, considering all these factors in totality of facts and circumstances
of the case, I am inclined to grant reasonable compensation towards mental CS No. 433/12 Krishna
Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 38 of 40 agony and harassment and
the ends of justice would meet if the plaintiff is awarded compensation equivalent to two months gross
salary. However, while computing the gross salary of the plaintiff for this purpose, it would not include
the reimbursement for fooding & local traveling payable at the rate of ETB 4500 per month as the said
allowances were to be paid while discharging the duties by the plaintiff and towards the reimbursement
for food and local traveling expenses. Hence, plaintiff is held entitled for compensation towards mental
agony for Rs. 2,38,000/ (Rs. 20,000/ + Rs. 99,000/ x 2 months).
52. The plaintiff has also claimed Rs. 1,50,000/ paid by him towards income tax on his earnings at
Ethiopia. But nothing has been placed on record by the plaintiff to show that he has paid Rs. 1,50,000/
towards income tax on his earnings and therefore in the absence of any evidence to the said effect, the
plaintiff cannot be held entitled to recover the same from the defendant.
53. In view of aforesaid discussions, the plaintiff is held entitled to recover a total sum of Rs.
6,53,254/ from the defendant towards damages on account of illegal termination from the services,
legal dues and compensation for mental agony and harassment. Accordingly, issue no. 1 & 2 are
decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. CS No. 433/12 Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs.
M/s Lea Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 39 of 40 RELIEF
54. As a sequel to my findings under Issue No. 1 & 2, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in his favour
and against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 6,53,254/. Since the claim of the plaintiff was bonafide and
the defendant withheld the same, therefore the plaintiff is also granted pendente lite and future interest
@ 6% per annum on the aforesaid amount from filing of the suit till realization of the amount. Plaintiff
is also awarded proportionate cost to the decreetal amount. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court (Balwant Rai Bansal)

on 12th November, 2014 Addl. District Judge 02 (SouthEast)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
CS No. 433/12
Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 40 of 40
CS No. 433/12
Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd. 12.11.2014 Present: Counsel for
plaintiff.
None for defendant.
Clarifications made. Put up at 4.00 PM for orders.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ADJ02/SE/Saket/New Delhi At 4.50 PM Present: None.
Vide my separate judgment of even date, the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed. Decree sheet be
prepared in terms of judgment.
File be consigned to record room.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ADJ02/SE/Saket/New Delhi 12.11.2014 CS No. 433/12 Krishna Kumar Gupta
Vs. M/s Lea Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Page 41 of 40

Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs Lea Associates South Asia PVT LTD On 12 November, 2014 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs Lea Associates South Asia PVT LTD On 12 November, 2014 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

8/29/2019 Krishna Kumar Gupta vs Lea Associates South Asia Pvt Ltd on 12 November, 2014

Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer Mobile View

ALL-IN FARE FROM EXTRA 25% OFF

Get this document in PDF Print it on a file/printer

Lea Associates South Asia Pvt Ltd. principles of natural justice

SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND RECOVERY OF

(a) Date of institution : 19.12.2008

g) The plaintiff allowed the construction scheme to favour the contractor.

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of money as prayed for ? OPP

Public Policy principles or administrative law principles do not apply to private

affording him an opportunity of being heard.

IC salary: Rs. 20,000/per month:

Overseas Per diem: USD 2200/ per month which comes at

Rs. 99,000/ per month

Reimbursement for fooding ETB 4500/ per month

& local traveling which comes at Rs. 20,250/ per

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Court (Balwant Rai Bansal)

None for defendant.

Clarifications made. Put up at 4.00 PM for orders.

(Balwant Rai Bansal) ADJ02/SE/Saket/New Delhi At 4.50 PM Present: None.

File be consigned to record room.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen