Delhi High Court
Sandeep Chopra vs M/S. Fashionite Impex Pvt. Ltd. on 28 February, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA No.62/2013 and C.M. No.4826/2013 (stay)
% 28th February, 2014
SANDEEP CHOPRA ......Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.
VERSUS
M/S. FASHIONITE IMPEX PVT. LTD. ...... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. Counsel for the appellant, on instructions from the appellant
who is present in person, confines the relief in this appeal as also in the suit
to the grant of 26 days salary i.e from 1.8.2008 to 26.8.2008, and for which
period the appellant worked with the respondent/defendant. It is also prayed
that the costs imposed by the first appellate court against the appellant be
waived especially because appellant is entitled to the relief of grant of salary
of 26 days.
RSA No.62/2013 Page 1 of 4
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff filed the suit
for recovery of Rs.1,28,067/- against the respondent/defendant/employer.
This amount of Rs.1,28,067/- included in it various amounts towards agony
caused by illegal termination i.e one month notice pay salary as also salary
of 26 days for which period the appellant/plaintiff had worked with the
respondent/defendant and so on.
3. Trial Court partly decreed the suit for amount of Rs.29,450/- ie
26 days salary as also one month's notice pay but the appeal against the
judgment of the trial court by the respondent/defendant was allowed and the
first appellate court while allowing the appeal imposed costs of Rs.50,000/-
upon the appellant/plaintiff herein.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through para 2
(on merits) of the written statement filed by the respondent/defendant,
wherein the respondent/employer admitted that the appellant had worked for
26 days ie from 1.8.2008 to 26.8.2008. Attention of this Court is also
invited by the appellant to paras 8 and 9 of the judgment of the trial court
that this para 2 of the written statement is noted for granting of recovery of
amount of salary for 26 days of work by the appellant/plaintiff/employee
with the respondent/employer/defendant.
RSA No.62/2013 Page 2 of 4
5. For the purpose of this second appeal, the following substantial
questions of law are framed:-
"(i) Whether the first appellate court committed a clear and grave
error of law in overlooking the admission of liability to pay 26 days salary as
made in para 2 of the written statement?
(ii) When the appellant/plaintiff had at least a claim for this salary
of 26 days, could the appellate court have imposed heavy costs of
Rs.50,000/-on the appellant?"
6. In my opinion, the questions of law have to be answered in
favour of the appellant as the plaintiff has restricted his claim to the claim of
salary of 26 days and for which period he worked with the
respondent/defendant and a fact which is admitted in the written statement
and so duly noted by the trial court in para 9 of its judgment. In law, for the
period of work, an employee is always entitled to salary. Therefore, it is
held that suit of the appellant/plaintiff is decreed for the salary of 26 days
and this figure is rounded off to a sum of Rs.14,000/-. Since the
appellant/plaintiff's suit is being partly decreed, costs cannot be imposed
against a successful appellant/plaintiff and therefore costs of Rs.50,000/-
awarded against the appellant/plaintiff by the appellate court are set aside.
RSA No.62/2013 Page 3 of 4
7. In view of the above, this Regular Second Appeal is allowed
and the suit of the appellant/plaintiff will stand decreed for an amount of
Rs.14,000/- alongwith interest @ 7 ½% per annum simple pendente lite and
future till payment. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
FEBRUARY 28, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
