Mr Sudipto Das vs M/S Lancesoft
2022 Latest Caselaw 7931 Kant

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7931 Kant
Judgement Date : 1 June, 2022

Karnataka High Court

Mr Sudipto Das vs M/S Lancesoft on 1 June, 2022

Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad

                            -1-



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                          BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD

       MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4998/2021 [CPC]

BETWEEN:
MR. SUDIPTO DAS
S/O MR NIKHIL KUMAR DAS
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESIDENT OF NO.6031
PRESTIGE SILVER
DALE APARTMENT
SARJAPUR ROAD
BANGALORE - 560035.
                                           ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VIJAY A. M., ADVOCATE)

AND:
1.     M/S LANCESOFT
       A COMPANY INCORPORATED
       UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT
       2013 AND REPRESENTED BY
       ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
       MR R P SHARMA
       NO 7/1 MANOHARA
       PLAZA BROOKFIELD ITPL ROAD
       BENGALURU - 560 066.
2.     MR R. P. SHARMA
       S/O MADANLAL SHARMA
       AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
       MANAGING DIRECTOR
       OF M/S LANCESOFT NO
       7/1 MANOHARA PLAZA
                                -2-



     BROOKFIELD ITPL ROAD
     BENGALURU - 560066.
                                                       ... RESPONDENTS
(R1 & R2 SERVED)

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED MFA
FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(a) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED 24.08.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.563/2019
ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, WHEREIN PLAINT
FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF IS HEREBY RETURNED FOR
FILING BEFORE APPROPRIATE COURT.

    THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON
FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                           JUDGMENT

The appellant, who is the plaintiff in

O.S. No.563/2019 on the file of the III Additional Senior

Civil Judge, Bengaluru [for short, 'the civil Court'], is

aggrieved by the impugned Order dated 24.08.2021

which reads as under:

"Perused the matter. Plaintiff has instituted the suit for recovery of salary with interest. In the pliant, plaintiff has pleaded that defendant No.1 is a Company duly incorporated as per law. Defendant No.2 is a Director of the defendant No.1. He was appointed as a President

01/08/2017. Defendants without assigning any reasons, hold the salary for the month of December-2018 and January-2018. He has requested to release his salary. He has resigned his job and intimated the same to the defendants.

have not paid his salary, for that, he has instituted the present suit. The relief of plaintiff is coming under Minimum Wages Act and Payment of Wages of Act. At the threshold civil court is not having jurisdiction to adjudicate the matters, which are coming under the Minimum Wages Act and Payment of Wages of Act. Hence, pass the following:

ORDER Plaint filed by the plaintiff is hereby returned for filing before appropriate court.

Office is directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff by following proper procedure."

2. The appellant's case is that he is an

Information Technology Professional having completed

his graduation in Engineering from Indian Institute of

Technology, Kharagpur and he was in employment with

the first respondent as a Director drawing an annual

salary of Rs.70,00,000/- as of November 2018. The

respondents without any justification have withheld his

salary for the months of December 2018 and January

2019 and as such, he is constrained to resign with

effect from 30.01.2019. He is entitled for salary for

these two months along with interest. He has therefore

commenced the suit for recovery of Rs.16,54,531/-.

3. The respondents though served with the suit

summons have not contested the suit. The appellant

has completed his evidence and it is at this stage, the

aforesaid Order is passed for return of the plaint.

4. Sri. A.M. Vijay, learned counsel for the

appellant, submits that the appellant who is not in any

scheduled employment as contemplated under the

provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 [for short,

MW Act'] would not be an 'employee' as defined under

Section 2[i] of the MW Act thereof. The civil Court

without considering these aspects has returned the

plaint in the premise that the appellant will have to file

appropriate claim before the competent authority under

the MW Act/Payment of Wages Act, 1936.

5. The submissions are considered in the light

of the provisions of the MW Act and the Payment of

Wages Act, 1936, and the fact and fact the appellant's

case remains uncontroverted. The civil Court has not

considered whether the appellant would be an employee

in scheduled employment as contemplated under these

enactments. Irrefutably, the appellant, an Information

Technology Professional employed as a Director, cannot

be said to be an employee or in scheduled employment

for the purposes of either enactment. This Court must

therefore, opine that the civil Court could not have

returned the plaint to be presented before the

Competent Authority under these enactments.

Therefore, the following:

ORDER

[a] The appeal is allowed;

[b] The impugned order dated 24.08.2021

in O.S. No.563/2019 on the file of the III

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru, is

set aside and the suit restored for

reconsideration on merits by the civil Court

in the light of the evidence on record;