Delhi High Court
Mrs. Badro Devi & Ors. vs State Bank Of India on 27 November, 2008
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Order : 27.11.2008
+ RFA 7/1994
MRS. BADRO DEVI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Akshay Makhija, Advocate
versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R.MIDHA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Late Sada Ram, husband of appellant No.1 and father
of the other appellants had filed a suit for recovery of
Rs.20,211.70/- against the respondent. Before the suit saw the
end he died. The appellants continued with the suit as his legal
heirs. The suit suffered a dismissal vide impugned judgment
and decree dated 30.9.1993.
2. Claim was predicated on the assertion in the plaint
that Sada Ram was appointed as a site supervisor by the
respondent vide appointment letter dated 24.6.1981 at a salary
of Rs.1,600/- per month. That he was to function as a supervisor
to keep a check on construction works at different places
awarded by the respondent. He stated that he was surprised to
receive a letter dated 8.5.1984 which referred to an earlier letter
dated 3.6.1983 as per which letter i.e. letter dated 13.6.1983 he
was to report at Hapur branch; he alleged that he was surprised
to receive the letter dated 8.5.1984 because he had never
received any letter dated 13.6.1983. He stated that the letter
dated 8.5.1984 wrongly recorded that he had abandoned
services and hence was not being treated as an employee by
the bank. Salary with effect from 14.6.1983 till 10.5.1984 was
claimed alleging that on 15.3.1983 his salary was increased
from Rs.1,600/- to Rs.1,700/- per month.
3. The bank took the defence that as per letter of
appointment Sada Ram was obliged to work not only at Delhi
but at any city in the States of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and
Haryana and that on 13.6.1983 he was directed to report to a
sight at Hapur and that on receipt of the said letter he
abandoned duties and never reported back. It was stated that
the letter written on 8.5.1984 was an intimation to Sada Ram of
the fact that the bank was treating him as having abandoned
services.
4. Shorn of unnecessary details and reference to
various exhibits, it may be noted that Ex.P-3 is admittedly a
letter addressed by Sada Ram on 19.5.1984 to the employer
raising a grievance as under:-
"FROM:
SADA RAM
S-72, PANCHSHILA PARK,
NEW DELHI - 110017
To
The Premises Officer
D-Block, 5th floor
State Bank of India
Parliament Street
New Delhi - 110001
Dear Sir,
I am in receipt of your letter on 8.5.1984. My
reply to your letter is as follows:-
1. Vide your appointment letter dated 24.6.81 I am
to supervise works at New Delhi local Head Office and
other local branches only. Therefore the question of
reporting for duty at Hapur Branch does not arise nor
could you ask for it. As already informed you, I did
not leave the job, the question of alleged giving
proper notice does not arise. You have illegally
deducted a sum of Rs.1,700/-. You have not paid my
salary for the period 1st May, 83 till today despite my
various demands. I by this letter again call upon you
to pay my salary amounting to Rs.22,100/- at the rate
of RS.1,700/- p.m. within two months from the receipt
of this letter failing which I will be compelled to take
legal action for its recovery.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(SADA RAM)"
5. Learned Trial Judge has opined that the letter Ex.P-3
concludes the issue of the plaintiff was aware of requiring to
report for duty at Hapur and that while responding to the letter
of the bank dated 8.5.1984 wherein reference was made to the
letter of 13.6.1983 he never refuted not having received the
same.
6. We are satisfied with the reasoning of the learned
Trial Judge more so for the reason it is against human conduct
for a person who does not get any salary in the month of May
1983 to keep quiet for over one year. Surely, a presumption
arises that Sada Ram knew the reason for his salary not being
released.
7. No work. No pay.
8. The appeal is dismissed.
9. No costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
J.R.MIDHA, J.
NOVEMBER 27, 2008
mm
