ORDER Devinder Gupta, J.
1. Both the appeals are being decided by a common judgment since they arise out of the same suit.
2. RSA No.130/83 is by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of Shri P.L.Singla, Additional District Judge by which judgment and decree of Smt.Urmila Rani, Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi was modified. As full claim has not been allowed, the prayer is to decree the entire suit. RSA No.153/83 is by the defendant against the judgment and decree passed by the courts below by which part of the plaintiff's claim has been decreed. Prayer in the said appeal is to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.
3. On 20.11.1980 plaintiff filed suit No.482 of 1980 against the defendant praying for a decree of Rs.10,000/- with costs and future interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. Suit was founded on the allegation that the plaintiff being qualified Audit Officer with excellent experience to his credit was appointed as an Internal Audit Officer by appointment letter dated 5.1.1977 with effect from 3.1.1977 by the defendant Company at Delhi. A sum of Rs.2,110/- was payable per month to the plaintiff as per terms and conditions as incorporated in the appointment letter, which included a salary of Rs.1700/- per month basic, Rs.200/- per month as house rent subsidy and Rs.210/- per month towards conveyance allowance, which was later on converted into City Compensatory Allowance. Rules and regulations applicable to the Senior Executives of the defendant Company, as referred to in the appointment letter were applicable. His work and conduct all along had been above board. On 30.5.1978 the defendant in violation of the principles of natural justice illegally and unlawfully terminated his services without assigning any reason and without serving any notice. Without prejudice to his rights to challenge the said order of termination separately, the plaintiff in the suit claimed that a sum of Rs.7,489.54 was due and payable to him towards T.A. and D.A. on account of visit to Khasa in January, 1977 an May, 1977; T.A. and D.A. on account of visit to Madras in November, 1977: T.A. and D.A. on account of visit to Calcutta in January, 1978: T.A. and D.A. on account of visit to Faridabad in March, 1978: T.A. and D.A. on account of visit to Khasa in April, 1978: Salary for May, 1978: one month's salary in lieu of non-service of notice: and bonus for the year ending 30.11.1978. The plaintiff claimed that as the amount had been wrongly withheld, he was entitled to interest on the amount at the rate of 12% p.a. with effect from 3.5.1978. Despite written requests the amounts due were not paid. Therefore, the plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs.7,489.54 towards balance amount and interest from 31.5.1978, total amounting to Rs.10,000/-.
4. The defendant disputed the plaintiff's claim alleging that the plaintiff could not work to the satisfaction of the Management. He left the services of his own and since the plaintiff left of his own, there was not question of terminating his services. On 28.5.1978 a letter was written by the plaintiff demanding advance from the defendant. In response to his claim, he was paid full and final amount due and payable vide cheque dated 10.5.1980, which was accepted by him by receipt dated 12.5.1980. To the averments, which the plaintiff had made in the pliant with respect to the receipt that it was not towards full and final settlement but the receipt was obtained under coercion and in the circumstances as explained by the plaintiff in the pliant, the defendant specifically denied the same stating that there was no question of any coercion. Amount was settled and duly paid to the plaintiff. Thus no claim was left over. In so far as the terms of appointment, the defendant did not dispute the plaintiff's claim and simply stated that reference be made to the appointment letter. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
"1. Whether the amount of Rs.4404.96 was not received in full and final settlement? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the amounts mentioned in para 4 of the pliant? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so, at what rate and to what amount? OPP.
4. Relief."
5. The trial court on the first issue held that receipt Ex.D1 on the face of it depict that it was signed by the plaintiff under protest since words "U.P." were written by the plaintiff immediately below his signatures on the revenue stamp. On appreciation of the evidence, it was held that it cannot be said that the plaintiff had accepted an amount of Rs.4404.96 vide receipt Ex.D1 towards full and final settlement of the dues. On issue No.2, it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of Rs.1,178.15 from the defendant, which included salary for 30.5.1978 as well as salary for one month period. No other claim was allowed to the plaintiff except interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the amount wrongfully held by the defendant. Interest allowed was to the tune of Rs.647.36. Thus a decree for Rs.2825.51 with interest on the principal amount of Rs.2178.15 at the rate of 12% p.a. from 24.11.1980 the date of institution of suit till date of decree and interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till realisation was passed on 29.8.1982 by the trial court.
6. Feeling aggrieved appeals were filed by the plaintiff as well as defendant. By the impugned judgment and decree passed on 28.2.1983 appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed whether the appeal filed by the plaintiff was partly allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was modified by the lower appellate court. Plaintiff was held entitled to a sum of Rs.2610/- which included Rs.2100/- on account of one month's salary in lieu of notice and Rs.500/- on account of TA and DA for his visit to Khasa from 13.4.1978 to 23.4.1978. Plaintiff was also held entitled to interest on his amount at the rate of 12$ p.a. from 30.5.1978 to the date of suit amounting to Rs.780/-. Thus a decree for Rs.3390/- was passed against the defendant with proportionate costs and future interest at the rate of 12% p.a.a from the date of decree of the trial court till realisation. It is this judgment and decree which is under challenge in this appeal both by the plaintiff and the defendant.
7. Though the trial on 1st issue returned finding in favor of the plaintiff holding that the receipt. Ex.D1 was under protest, lower appellate court reversed the said finding holding that the receipt was towards full and final settlement for the components of the claim, as mentioned in the said receipt and not for all components of claims. In coming to this conclusion, the lower appellate Court observed that since the plaintiff had received the amount in full and final settlement, there was no question of his putting words "U.P." on the receipt. There was no question of any threat or coercion. Law does not allow a person to receive any amount first in full and final settlement and then after realisating the same to lodge a protest. Before lodging protest it was necessary for the plaintiff to have returned the benefit taken by him. As the benefit derived had not been returned, the receipt Ex.D1 was held to operate in full and final settlement of his account.
8. The plaintiff appeared in person and argued his case. No body appeared for the defendant when the case was called for hearing. Case had been on the hearing board in the category of "Old Cases". Nobody had appeared for the appellant even on 13.7.2000, 18.8.2000 and 3.11.2000.
9. I have gone through the entire record.
10. At the very outset on going through the record and considering the submission made by the plaintiff/appellant. I am of the view that the findings of the Lower Appellate Court on issue No. 1 that receipt Ex.D1 was given towards full and final settlement of the clams referred to therein are not at all sustainable. There was no valid reason that why there ought to have been any interference with the findings recorded on issue No. 1 by the trial court on issue No.1. Cogent reasons had been assigned by the trial Court in support of its findings. Before the receipt Ex.D1 was executed there have been exchange of letters, which were duly proved on record and have been referred to in the judgment of the courts below for which reference need not be made again. From the same what can be seen is that from time to time the plaintiff had been reiterating his claim. The plaintiff's version in his statement had been that against the amount. which was due and payable to him, nothing was paid by the Company and ultimately a meagre amount was offered to him stating that in case the said amount is not accepted, the plaintiff will have to spend rest of his life in Courts of Law for recovering the same. Therefore, in order to reserve his right to continue agitating for his legitimate claims and that the amount offered was not towards full and final settlement, while putting his signatures on the receipt Ex.D1 he expressed his intention by putting the words "U.P." below his signatures. It was the defendant who had taken up the plea that plaintiff having accepted the amount towards full and final settlement of his claim, therefore, it was necessary for the defendant to have led evidence on that score. The only evidence adduced towards that plea is the receipt Ex.D1. Though the receipt Ex.D1 recites that the plaintiff received the sum of Rs.4,404,96 vide cheque dated 10.5.1980 toward full and final settlement of his account with the Company towards salary for the month of May, 1978 and bonus for the year ending 30.11.1978, the same was produced in Court by the defendant. It had remained in defendant's custody till its production in Court. It also on the face of it suggest that the plaintiff by putting his signatures made his intention clear that the same were being put under protest and for that reason also he wrote the words "U.P." The trial court had assigned cogent reason that in the light of the conduct of the plaintiff before and after the execution of receipt towards full and final settlement of his claim. Therefore, non-considering of these reasons by the Lower Appellate Court for reversing the findings was bad in law the lower appellate court consequently was not justified in not adjudicating upon rest of the claims. Tour allowance was held not justified on reversing the finding of the trial court on issue No.1. In view of material on record, it has to be held that the receipt Ex.D1 was not towards full and final settlement of the claim.
11. The plaintiff alleged that the terms and conditions were incorporated in the appointment letter Ex.P.3 dated 5.1.1977, which stated that on his joining he will be entitled to all benefits as enjoined by Senior Executives besides being paid a sum of Rs. 1700/- per month put Rs.200/- towards house rent subsidy and Rs.210/- towards conveyance allowance besides being entitled to join Provident Fund Scheme from the date of joining. Ex.P.2 is the copy of terms and conditions of service for Executives, which state that employees drawing basis pay of over Rs.1,000/- per month will fall in the category of Executives and will be governed by the rules, which will come into effect from financial year beginning with 1.12.1976. Clause 5 of the same says that Executives irrespective of their salaries will be entitled to bonus as declared by the Company from year to year. Clause 6 provides that for journeys on duty at the place of posting unless otherwise allowed, Executives drawing salary over Rs.1500/- are entitled to actual taxi hire expenses and the other actual three wheeler hire expenses but it shall not apply to, journeys between their residence and office at the head quarters for normal office working hours. Clause 8 says that they will be deemed to be on tour if they go 16 Kms. away from the office. Clause 9 provided that while on tour from head quarter they will be entitled to daily allowance rate. For Executives drawing above Rs.1500/-, daily allowance payable is Rs.150/-. It is also stated that absence from headquarters for more than 8 hours will be reckoned full day and for less than 8 hours as half day for payment of D.A. For halts at BIC Khasa Guest House where Boarding and Lodging is provided free by the Company, D.A. will be paid only at 1/3rd of the above rates. Making these conditions as a foundation and considering the material on record, in addition to what was allowed by the Lower Appellate Court, I am of the view that the plaintiff ought to have been held entitled to the following amounts:-
i) Difference in salary for the 30.5.1978 Rs. 68.15 ii) Difference in TA & DA for tour to Madras. Rs. 996.50 iii) Difference in TA & DA for tour to Calcutta. Rs.1250.00 iv) Difference in TA & DA on account of visit to Faridabad Rs. 720.00 Total :- Rs. 3034.65
12. The plaintiff had also claimed a sum of Rs.544.89 towards difference of bonus for the year ending 30.11.1978 claiming that it ought to have been paid on the full amount of Rs.2,110/- instead of on Rs.1700/-. This claim of the plaintiff cannot be accepted since bonus was payable on 20% of the salary and not 20% on the entire amount of salary with allowances. The lower appellate court had also held the plaintiff entitled to interest on the amounts withheld by the Company at the rate of 12% p.a.a w.e.f. 3.5.1978. In addition to the amount allowed by the lower appellate court, the plaintiff is held entitled to Rs.3034.65 and interest on this amount w.e.f. 3.5.1978 to 20.11.1980 at the rate of 12% p.a. amounting to Rs.1271.60.
13. I have gone through the appeal of the defendant. There is no ground made out to interfere with the findings of fact.
14. Consequently, while dismissing RSA No. 153/1983, R.S.A. 130/83 is allowed. Judgment and decree of the lower courts below are modified. Instead and in place of the decree passed, a decree for Rs.5644.65 towards principal besides a sum of Rs.1271.60 towards interests on this amount from 30.5.1978 till the date of filing the suit, and interest on the principal amount of Rs.5644.65 at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till date of decree and from date of decree till realisation is passed in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant with proportionate costs throughout.
ORDER
15. By a common judgment passed today in RFA.130/83, this appeal has been dismissed.
16. A copy of judgment delivered in RFA No.130/83 be placed on the file of RFA.153/83 by the Registry.