Delhi High Court
Aarti Gupta vs M/S Jubilant Oil & Gas Pvt. Ltd. on 12 February, 2020
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 12.02.2020
+ W.P.(C) 1067/2016
AARTI GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. V.K. Sharma, Advocate.
versus
M/S JUBILANT OIL & GAS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ivan, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
1. This petition impugns the order of the learned Labour Court dated
20.10.2015, which did not grant the petitioner reinstatement in her services
with full consequential benefits and dismissed her claim petition.
2. The petitioner was employed by way of an appointment letter dated
18.09.2006, in which the clause of termination of services read as under:
"....
9. After confirmation, your services can also be
terminated at any time by giving three months notice
by either side or basic salary in lieu thereof.
....."
3. The period of the contract was not determined, although, it could have
been terminated in terms of the aforementioned clause. The petitioner was
working as a Senior Geophysicist; the management terminated her services
vide letter dated 25.06.2010 and she was, thereafter, asked to contact the
senior executive for settlement of her full and final dues.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the letter came as a
cruel shock to the petitioner, who was to get married the very next day, of
which the management was fully aware.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that albeit the
petitioner had pursued her rights in law before the Court, nevertheless, it
was for the management to have tendered the requisite amount and she, not
being an employee, was not obliged to appear before the management for
collection of her dues.
6. The management has not quantified as to what amount would be
payable to her. The respondent contends that the monies were offered to her
but she was asked to appear before it. There is, however, nothing on the
record to show that she was offered any fixed amount of money or that a
cheque of such amount was tendered to her, which according to the
management was payable to her, or that she refused to accept the same. In
fact, the management has kept the monies with itself for more than ten years.
The management should have been fair to her by offering her, her dues as
calculated by them instead of waiting for her to return to it. Why was it
important for her to visit the respondent when her services had been
unceremoniously terminated, just a day before her wedding.
7. Admittedly, in a cross-examination of the petitioner on 03.04.2013
before the learned Labour Court, a suggestion was put to her that she was
sent a cheque of Rs. 3,55,544/- in clearance of her dues but she denied this
suggestion. In other words, the management accepts that an amount of Rs.
3,55,544/- was payable to her, at least, as of the date when her services were
terminated.
8. Till today, the management has not put any document or calculation
on record showing as to what amounts were due to be paid to the petitioner
at the time of her termination. However, insofar as the aforesaid suggestion
has been made by the management that Rs. 3,55,544/- was tendered to her
by way of a cheque, it does admit that that quantum of money would be
payable. Having sat on it for more than ten years, they would be liable to
pay an interest on the aforesaid amount. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Delhi vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association & Ors. (2011) 14 SCC 481,
the Supreme Court has fixed a simple interest @ 9% per annum payable
alongwith the amounts due to claimants. In a number of cases in the Motor
Accident Claim Matters also, this Court has fixed simple interest @ 9% per
annum on the amounts due.
9. In view of the above, let Rs. 3,55,544/-, alongwith interest accrued @
9% per annum from the date of termination of services of the petitioner, be
deposited by the respondent-management, directly into the bank account of
the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
10. The Court would not lose sight of the fact that much anguish must
have been caused to the petitioner prior to her marriage because of her
abrupt termination of service. The management robbed her of her happiness
on a momentous occasion in her life and made tepid the celebration of the
joyous occasion. Additionally, the case stands pending for the last half-a-
decade for which expenses must have been incurred by the petitioner.
11. In the circumstances, let an additional amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- be
paid to the petitioner towards litigation expenses. The said monies shall be
deposited directly into her bank account within four weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
12. The writ petition is disposed-off in terms of the above.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
FEBRUARY 12, 2020
AB
