| Citation | RSA No. 3369 of 2018 (O&M) |
| Date of judgement | 1st August 2018 |
| Court | Supreme court of India |
| Case type | Companies Act 1956 |
| Appellant | MS Sarita Singh |
| Respondent | M/S Shree Infosoft Private limited |
| Bench | HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL |
| Referred | Legal Dispute over Resignation |
FACT OF THE CASE:
In the case of Ms. Sarita Singh vs. M/s Shree Infosoft Private Limited,9 the Supreme Court dismissed the suit for recovery instituted by the respondent. Sarita Singh (Appellant) worked for the M/s Shree Infosoft Private Limited (Respondent) as a software developer. The appellant was sent to the US for a meeting and after coming back to India she went on to work until December 12, 2013 and then quit. After the appellant left the company, she got a notice from an advocate asking for payment of “overseas deputation and salary for the notice period.”
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery of `5,70,753/- alongwith the interest at the rate of 24% per 2 of 5 annum from the date of suit till realization.
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable.
3. Relief.
ARGUMENTS:
The Bench noted that the respondent as a claimant and plaintiff had to discharge the initial burden of establishing that the appellant Was sent on deputation overseas, and that significantly, while the terms and conditions of employment have been reduced to writing, there is no valid evidence on the basis of which it can be deduced that the appellant was sent on deputation overseas. The Bench recorded that “On the contrary, it is the contention of the appellant that she was sent overseas for a business meeting.Referring to three-judge Bench in umapati Choudhary v. State of Bihar,(1999) 4 SCC 659 and two-judge Bench in Union of India v. S N Maity, (2015) 4 SCC 164it was observed: “Thus, A deputation involves a tripartite Consensual agreement between the Lending employer, borrowing employer and the employee. Specific rights and obligations would bind the parties and govern their conduct. A transient business Visit without any written agreement detailing terms of deputation will not qualify as a deputation unless the respondent were to lead cogent evidence to indicate that the appellant was seconded to work overseas on deputation. This aspect of the case has completely been ignored by all the three courts below. The claim was not substantiated having regard to the plain terms of the contract.”
JUDGEMENT:
Thus Hon‟ble Apex Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned Judgment of the High Court. Moreover, the Court expressed that “The
appellant has been subjected to needless harassment and drawn into a vortex of litigation. She had concerns about the conditions at the workplace. When she complained and resigned, she has been met with a reprisal of being embroiled in a suit for recovery. Courts must send a strong message that such things shall not come to pass and will not be tolerated by the legal system. Hence, the appellant shall be entitled to the costs of the litigation quantified in the amount of Rs 1 lakh which shall be deposited in the registry of this court within a period of one month from the date of this order.”
REFERENCES:
Www.Sribd.com
Www.Livelaw.in
Written by Naheed Fatima an intern under legal vidhiya
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
