Bombay High Court
Pravin Vasant Deshpande vs M/S. Cormpton Greaves Ltd on 4 March, 2024
Author: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Bench: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
2024:BHC-AS:10724
sa_mandawgad 13sa117-17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO. 117 OF 2017
Suhas Sudhakar Gokhale ... Appellant.
Versus
M/s. Cormpton Greaves Ltd. ... Respondent.
------
Mr. Vijay Vaidya a/w. Mr.Mahendra Agvekar, Ms.Shraddha Chavan,
for the Appellants.
Mr. Vikram Sathaye a/w. Mr.Hrishikesh S. Shinde, for the sole-
Respondent.
------
AND
SECOND APPEAL NO.119 OF 2017
Pravin Vasant Deshpande ... Appellant.
Versus
M/s. Cormpton Greaves Ltd. ... Respondent.
------
Mr. Vijay Vaidya a/w. Mr.Mahendra Agvekar, Ms.Shraddha Chavan,
for the Appellants.
Mr. Vikram Sathaye a/w. Mr.Hrishikesh S. Shinde, for the sole-
Respondent.
------
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : MARCH 04, 2024
P. C.:
1. Being dissatisfied by the judgment dated 27 th July, 2016
by which the Appellate Court partly allowed the Appeal declaring
13sa117-17
that the resignation letter dated 2nd April, 2000 was not voluntary
and was obtained by force and as such was null and void and
directed the Respondent to pay compensation equivalent to two
years salary on the basis of pay and allowances drawn by the
Appellant as on 2nd April, 2000, the original-Plaintiff is before this
Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by
their original status before the trial Court.
2. The plaintiffs were employees of the Respondent-
Company. It was pleaded that on 2nd April, 2000, they were called
by the officers of defendant-company and asked to sign on pre-
typed resignation letters, failing which they were threatened to be
terminated. It was contended that the resignations were obtained
by undue influence and under coercion in respect of which police
complaint was filed. As such, the suit was filed for declaration that
the resignation letters were obtained under coercion.
3. The suit came to be resisted by the defendant-company
contending that there was voluntary resignation. It was further
pleaded that the plaintiffs belong to executive category and the
relief of damages equivalent to salary and allowance was not
13sa117-17
tenable.
4. The parties went to trial and the trial Court after framing
the necessary issues, dismissed the suit, as against which Appeal
came to be filed. The Appellate Court held that the resignations
were submitted due to undue influence. As regards the damages,
the Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs have not led any
evidence in respect of the damages nor there are any averments in
respect of the same. The Appellate Court granted compensation
equivalent to two years salary.
5. Heard Mr. Vijay Vaidya, learned counsel for the Appellants
and Mr. Vikram Sathaye, learned counsel for the sole-Respondent.
6. Learned counsel for the Appellant would submit that once
the resignation has been held to be null and void, the plaintiffs are
deemed to be in service and as such were entitled to
compensation for the entire tenure of their employment. He
submits that the substantial question of law which arises in the
present case is as regards the quantum of compensation granted
which is limited to only two years. He submits that the same is
without any basis considering that the resignation has been
13sa117-17
declared to be null and void.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
would submit that subsequent to the resignations the entire
retirement benefits including the provident fund were withdrawn
by the plaintiffs which fact has been suppressed. He would further
submit that there was no evidence brought on record as regards
the damages and as such the compensation has been rightly
awarded which has been deposited in this Court.
8. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
9. The admitted facts are that the plaintiffs were employees
of the defendant-company and were working in the executive
category. Resignations were tendered on 2nd April, 2000, which
have been held by the Appellate Court to have been obtained by
coercion on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. The
plaintiffs had approached the Civil Court seeking declaration that
the resignation is null and void. As the plaintiffs do not fall within
the category of workmen, they are not covered by the labour law
Legislation. The appointment of the plaintiffs with the defendant-
company amounts a contract between the parties. If it is held that
13sa117-17
there is a breach of the terms of the contract, the plaintiffs are
entitled to damages. The Appellate Court has considered the
provisions of Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which
reads thus:
"73. Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach
of contract.-- When a contract has been broken, the
party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive,
from the party who has broken the contract,
compensation for any loss or damage caused to him
thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of
things from such breach, or which the parties knew,
when they made the contract, to be likely to result from
the breach of it.
Such compensation is not to be given for any
remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason
of the breach.
Compensation for failure to discharge obligation
resembling those created by contract.--When an
obligation resembling those created by contract has been
incurred and has not been discharged, any person injured
by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive the
same compensation from the party in default, as if such
person had contracted to discharge it and had broken his
contract.
Explanation.--In estimating the loss or damage arising
from a breach of contract, the means which existed of
remedying the inconvenience caused by the non-
performance of the contract must be taken into account."
10. The findings of the Appellate Court is that the plaintiffs
have not led any evidence in respect of the damages suffered by
them because of the wrongful termination nor they have made any
averments in respect of the same. The provisions of Section 73 of
13sa117-17
the Indian Contract Act, entitles the persons suffering from the
breach to compensation for any loss or damages, which naturally
arose in the usual course of things from such breach. In the
absence of any material brought on record to show the loss or
damages which arose by reason of the termination, the Appellate
Court by relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
O.P. Bhandari vs. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.
and Ors. reported in 1987 (7) E.L.J. 167(SC) has observed that in
that case, the Apex Court had awarded equivalent to 3.3 years
salary. The Appellate Court has further observed that the plaintiffs
did not attend work after 2nd April, 2000 and there is no material
on record to demonstrate the loss suffered by them due to the
breach of contract.
11. Considering the material on record the Appellate Court
has directed compensation equivalent to two years salary of the
Appellants. In view of Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, the
burden was upon the plaintiffs to bring on record material to show
the loss or damages which has occurred due to breach of the
contract. There is no material brought before the Courts and as
13sa117-17
such, the Appellate Court have granted the compensation in its
discretion equivalent to two years salary. Having regard to the
discussion above, no substantial question of law arises. The Appeal
is dismissed.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that
the Appellant be permitted to withdraw the amount of
compensation deposited by the defendant-company in the trial
Court. Learned counsel for the Respondent has no objection. The
Appellants are at liberty to withdraw the said amount deposited in
the trial Court alongwith interest accrued thereon.
( Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.)
Signed by: Sanjay A. Mandawgad
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 06/03/2024 10:34:49
