Delhi District Court
Pandey Ujjwal Anand vs Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd on 30 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DR. SUGANDHA AGGARWAL,
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW
DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO. 356 OF 2020
DLND010049072020
IN THE MATTER OF:
Pandey Ujjwal Anand
R/o WZ-31A, Gali No. 13,
Krishna Park, Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi-110018
...Plaintiff
Versus
Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd.
Through its Managing Director
Corporate Office at:
8-2-598/A/1/15, Plot No. 15,
Road No. 10, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad-500034
...Defendant
Date of filing the suit : 15.10.2020
Date when reserved for judgment : 25.03.2026
Date of Judgment : 30.04.2026
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall decide the suit for recovery of sum of Rs.
29,67,212/- filed by the plaintiff. Initially, the present suit was filed
by the plaintiff under Order 37 of Code of Civil Procedure.
However, the present suit was treated as ordinary suit for recovery
vide order dated 28.10.2020.
Digitally
signed by
SUGANDHA
CS No. 356/2020 Pandey Ujjwal Anand v. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. Page 1 of 28 SUGANDHA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.30
10:11:52
+0530
PLEADINGS
2. The facts as averred in the plaint are that the plaintiff was
appointed as Regional Manager-North for the defendant company.
As per the terms of employment, the plaintiff joined his duty with
effect from 15.01.2014 and his place of work was in Delhi. Plaintiff
was issued a formal employment letter dated 18.02.2014 confirming
his employment with the defendant company.
3. As per the pay package, the gross salary of the plaintiff was
Rs. 97,385/- per month and the total monthly payable salary was
fixed at Rs. 1,04,333/- which was inclusive of other benefits. The
defendant company opened the salary account for the plaintiff in
UCO Bank, Naraina, Delhi, bearing account no. 102370110044094.
4. It is further stated that since April 2014, the defendant
company was not paying full monthly salary to the plaintiff. The
plaintiff has also given the details of the salary which was payable
and the actual amount which was paid from 27.03.2014 till
13.01.2017. It is further stated that as on 01.12.2017, a total sum of
Rs. 29,67,212/- was due to be paid towards the arrears of salary.
Plaintiff approached the management of the defendant company
several times for payment of the pending salary amount each and
every time he was assured that the dues will be paid in some time.
5. It is further contended that on 15.11.2017 plaintiff was
working in his office at Delhi along with other employees. At
around 12 noon, officials from Tata Finance along with police
officials came to the office of defendant company and took over the
possession of the office in compliance of a court order. It is stated
that the said fact was duly intimated to the defendant company and
CS No. 356/2020 Pandey Ujjwal Anand v. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. Page 2 of 28
Digitally signed
by SUGANDHA
AGGARWAL
SUGANDHA
Date:
AGGARWAL 2026.04.30
10:12:01
+0530
it seems that the company was already aware about it. Since then,
the plaintiff had become jobless and subsequent to this event also
plaintiff requested the defendant company to clear his arrears of
salary.
6. It is further stated that, as the salary remained unpaid, plaintiff
issued a legal notice dated 01.11.2018 thereby calling upon the
defendant company to clear the arrears of salary amounting to Rs.
29,67,212/- along with interest @18% p.a. within 30 days of the
receipt of legal notice. Defendant replied to the same vide reply
dated 27.12.2018. It is stated that instead of making the balance
payment, defendant raised false and frivolous grounds that the
plaintiff was not punctual and regular in attending the office or that
the plaintiff has not discharged his duties resulting in huge losses to
the defendant company. It is contended that the plaintiff regularly
attended the office and all the meetings. The attendance register
which was maintained in the office and was also sent to the head
office clearly proves the same.
7. It is further contended that the plaintiff has personally visited
the clients such as BHEL, L&T, LANKO etc. It was the defendant
company who took advances from the clients but could not supply
the material on time or the material supplied was defective. It is
stated that owing to such conduct of the defendant company, losses
were incurred but the same cannot be attributed to the plaintiff.
8. As the arrears of salary remained unpaid, plaintiff was
constrained to file the present suit seeking recovery of sum of Rs.
29,67,212/-.
9. The defendant filed the written statement through Sh. Arjun
CS No. 356/2020 Pandey Ujjwal Anand v. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. Page 3 of 28
Digitally signed
by SUGANDHA
AGGARWAL
SUGANDHA
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.30
10:12:11
+0530
Badruka who was the authorized representative of the defendant
company. He was duly authorised vide the Board Resolution dated
15.05.2016.
10. The defendant has averred that the suit is barred by limitation
as the same has been filed on 14.10.2020 claiming arrears of rent
from February 2014 to November 2017. It is further submitted that
the suit is without any cause of action, the plaintiff has never raised
any objection or demanded the unpaid salary for the entire service
tenure of three years and it is only after he left his job that he filed
the present suit.
11. It is submitted that the plaintiff has not approached the court
with clean hands as he has concealed an office order dated
27.02.2014 issued by the defendant company to all its employees.
By the said office order, the company has reduced the annual salary
of all the employees by 50% and also offered exemption from
serving notice period to the employees who did not wish to accept
the said reduction. It is further stated that despite issuance of this
office order, plaintiff chose to continue with the employment in the
defendant company.
12. It is further stated that plaintiff never worked as expected nor
gave outstanding performances. In fact, he failed to implement
defendant’s policies and rules which resulted in huge losses to the
defendant company. The plaintiff was irregular in attending the
office and out of the total service period of three and a half years,
the plaintiff remained absent for approximately fourteen months.
Defendant has also pointed out various irregularities committed by
the plaintiff while performing his duties as an employee of the
CS No. 356/2020 Pandey Ujjwal Anand v. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. Page 4 of 28
Digitally signed
by SUGANDHA
SUGANDHA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.30
10:12:21 +0530
defendant company. It is stated that the plaintiff failed to collect the
payments from various customers which remained pending. It is
stated that the plaintiff also engaged himself in other businesses and
occupations which was contrary to the rules and regulations of the
defendant company.
13. It is submitted that in view of the above conduct of the
plaintiff, the defendant company suffered consistent business losses
and therefore in fact it is the defendant company which is entitled to
recover losses from the plaintiff and is not liable to pay any
payment to the plaintiff. It is contended that in fact the office at the
Naraina, New Delhi was also mortgaged against some business
loans for which also the plaintiff was responsible. He was the
incharge for management of the entire office situated at Naraina,
New Delhi but due to his consistent absent from the job, huge losses
were incurred. In fact when the representatives of the financial
institution came to take the possession, the plaintiff was not found
present in the office and he was forcibly called to the office.
14. Besides this, the fact that the plaintiff was employed as
Regional Manager-North w.e.f. 15.01.2014 is not disputed.
However, it is reiterated that in view of the above-mentioned
submissions, the defendant company is not liable to pay any amount
towards the due of the salary.
REPLICATION
15. In his replication, the plaintiff denied the averments of the
written statement while simultaneously reiterating and reaffirming
the contents of the plaint.
CS No. 356/2020 Pandey Ujjwal Anand v. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. Page 5 of 28
Digitally signed
by SUGANDHA
SUGANDHA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.30
10:12:30 +0530
ISSUES
16. After completion of the pleadings and from material on
record, following issues were framed on 28.11.2022:-
Issue no. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of sum of
Rs. 29,67,212/- as prayed in the prayer clause (a) of the plaint? OPP
Issue no. 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest as prayed in
the prayer clause (a) of the plaint? OPP
Issue no. 3: Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD
Issue no. 4: Whether the suit is without cause of action and is liable
to be dismissed as such? OPDPLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE
17. In order to prove its case, plaintiff examined himself as PW-1.
He has filed his evidence by way of affidavit in examination-in-
chief which is Ex. PW1/A wherein he has reiterated the contents of
plaint on oath. PW-1 has relied upon various documents i.e.
(1) Appointment letter dated 18.02.2014 as Ex.PW1/1.
(2) Letter dated 04.01.2014 as Ex.PW1/2.
(3) Copy of pass book of plaintiff as Ex.PW1/3 (OSR).
(4) Legal notice dated 01.11.2018 as Ex.PW1/4.
(5) Reply of the legal notice by the defendant dated 27.12.2018 as
Ex.PW1/5.
(6) Copy of salary account opened by defendant as Mark A.
18. PW-1 was cross-examined on behalf of defendant by Sh.
Vivek Munshi, Ld. counsel and then discharged on 07.12.2023. No
other witness was examined by the plaintiff. Thereafter, PE was
CS No. 356/2020 Pandey Ujjwal Anand v. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. Page 6 of 28
Digitally signed
by SUGANDHA
SUGANDHA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.30
10:12:42 +0530
closed on 07.05.2024.
DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE
19. Defendant company examined its authorised representative Sh.
Arjun Badruka as DW-1. DW-1 has tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit which is Ex.DW1/A. DW-1 has relied upon documents
which are as follows:
(1) Board resolution dated 15.05.2016 as Mark DA.
(2) Circular email dated 27.02.2014 as Ex. DW-1/2.
(3) Salary payable ledger as Ex. DW-1/3.
(4) Certificate under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence as Ex.
DW-1/4.
20. DW-1 was cross-examined on behalf of plaintiff by Sh. Vivek
Singh, Ld. Counsel and then discharged. No other witness was
examined by the defendant. Thereafter, defendant’s evidence was
closed on 12.08.2024 and the matter was fixed for hearing of final
arguments vide order dated 12.08.2024.
ARGUMENTS
21. Written arguments have been filed on behalf of both the
parties. Arguments have been addressed in the court also.
22. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the suit is well
within limitation as the limitation period shall start running from
30.11.2017 when the salary was to be paid last. It is further argued
that admittedly on 15.11.2017 the plaintiff was called in the office to
assist in the legal proceedings. This fact has been admitted by DW-1
in his cross-examination which clearly shows that the plaintiff was
CS No. 356/2020 Pandey Ujjwal Anand v. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. Page 7 of 28
Digitally signed
by SUGANDHA
SUGANDHA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.30
10:12:51 +0530
working with the defendant in November, 2017 also.
23. Ld. Counsel has further argued that as per the schedule placed
on record by the plaintiff, the defendant was making part payment
and therefore, there is continuous cause of action in favour of the
plaintiff and limitation period shall be computed accordingly.
24. It is further argued that the alleged circular by which salary of
all the employees was reduced to 50% is false and baseless because
subsequent to the date of the said circular, complete salary was
disbursed to the plaintiff on few occasions. Further, the plaintiff
shall be given advantage of the exemption of limitation period
owing to Covid-19 Pandemic and in these circumstances the suit
filed by the plaintiff is within limitation.
25. In the written submissions it is stated that the appointment
letter Ex. PW-1/1 along with offer letter Ex. PW-1/2 are admitted by
the defendant and now the defendant is trying to mislead the Court
by making wrong submissions with regard to Ex. PW-1/2.
26. It is further submitted that while replying to the legal notice,
the defendant has neither mentioned about any circular regarding
reducing the salary to 50% nor any such averment that the dues
were not paid to the plaintiff intentionally. This clearly shows that
there was no such circular. It is further argued on behalf of the
plaintiff that the defendant has examined only one witness who has
not filed any attendance register to show that the plaintiff was
irregular in performing his duties as alleged.
27. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that the
suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation as the plaintiff is
seeking arrears of salary for the period from February, 2014 tillCS No. 356/2020 Pandey Ujjwal Anand v. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. Page 8 of 28
Digitally signed
by SUGANDHA
SUGANDHA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.30
10:13:01 +0530
November, 2017 and the present suit has been filed on 14.10.2020.
28. It is further stated that the suit is without any cause of action
and the plaintiff has concealed material facts from the Court. While
the plaintiff was in service, office order Ex. DW-1/2 was issued and
circular was also issued to the employees wherein the salary was
reduced to 50%. Therefore, the plaintiff did not raise any demand
while being in service and after leaving the employment, the
plaintiff is trying to take advantage of his letter of appointment.
29. It is further stated that the plaintiff was offered the position of
Regional Manager (North) and was assured that he will be
maximizing the business of the defendant company, however the
plaintiff was negligent in discharging his official duties and was not
even attending the office regularly. The plaintiff has failed to even
collect the payment from several customers such as LANCO, BHEL
and L&T etc.
30. It is further contended that PW-1/plaintiff has admitted in his
cross-examination that the last salary was received by him on
13.11.2017 and he has filed the present suit on 15.10.2020 seeking
arrears of salary from January, 2014 to November, 2017 which is
clearly barred by limitation. Ld. Counsel for defendant has relied
upon following judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in support
of his contentions : –
(A) Union of India & Others Vs. Tarsem Singh,
SLP (C) Nos. 3820-3821 of 2008, decided on
13.08.2008.
(B) Bhagirath Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Uttar-
CS No. 356/2020 Pandey Ujjwal Anand v. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. Page 9 of 28
Digitally signed
by SUGANDHA
SUGANDHA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.30
10:13:12 +0530
Pradesh, 2024:AHC:111436 A.F.R,
decided on 09.07.2024.
(C) Shishuvihar Shaishanik Sanstha Chalisgaon &
Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, W.P. No.
8966 of 2022, decided on 21.10.2024.
FINDINGS
31. I have considered the rival contentions and have perused the
record. My issue-wise findings are as follows:
Issue no. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of sum of
Rs. 29,67,212/- as prayed in the prayer clause (a) of the
plaint? OPP
Issue no. 3: Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD
Issue no. 4: Whether the suit is without cause of action and is liable
to be dismissed as such? OPD
32. The onus to prove issue no.1 was upon the plaintiff, whereas
the onus to prove issues no.3 and 4 was upon the defendant.
32.1 The findings on these issues are interconnected and
overlapping, accordingly, these issues are taken up together for
adjudication.
32.2 The plaintiff has averred that he was employed as Regional
Manager, North, vide appointment letter dated 04.01.2014, by the
defendant company at a fixed CTC of Rs.12.52 lakhs per annum.
The plaintiff has further averred that he joined his duties with the
defendant company on 15.01.2014 and a formal appointment letter
dated 18.02.2014 was thereafter issued to him.
CS No. 356/2020 Pandey Ujjwal Anand v. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. Page 10 of 28
Digitally signed
by SUGANDHA
AGGARWAL
SUGANDHA
Date:
AGGARWAL 2026.04.30
10:13:20
+0530
32.3 These facts have not been disputed by the defendant. Thus,
the fact that the plaintiff was employed with the defendant
company as Regional Manager, North, on the terms and conditions
contained in the appointment letter stands duly established.
32.4 The plaintiff has further averred that, as per the appointment
letter, his gross salary was Rs.97,385/- per month. However, since
joining the defendant company, he was not paid his full salary. The
plaintiff has furnished the break-up of the salary received by him
from 2014 to 2017. He has further averred that he had been
continuously pursuing the defendant for payment of his outstanding
salary dues, which however remained unpaid.
32.5 The defendant has not disputed that the plaintiff was
appointed with a salary of Rs.97,385/- per month. It has been
averred that, owing to financial constraints, the defendant company
issued an office circular dated 27.02.2014 whereby all employees
were informed that their salaries would be reduced by up to 50%.
By way of the said circular the employees were also given an option
to quit from the service, alongwith the exemption from serving the
notice period. It is the contention of the defendant that, despite the
said circular, all employees, including the plaintiff, chose to
continue in employment. It is thus submitted that in these
circumstances, the salary of the plaintiff stood reduced by upto
50%, and that the plaintiff has concealed this material fact.
32.6 It is further contended by the defendant that the plaintiff was
irregular in attending his duties and, out of total tenure of three and
half years, he remained absent for about fourteen months. It is also
alleged that the plaintiff was not diligent in the discharge of his
CS No. 356/2020 Pandey Ujjwal Anand v. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. Page 11 of 28
Digitally signed
by SUGANDHA
AGGARWAL
SUGANDHA
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.30
10:13:28
+0530
duties.
32.7 It is the case of the defendant that the company was incurring
losses, and the plaintiff was appointed as the Regional Manager,
North, on the basis of his assurance that he would enhance the
business of the company in the Northern Region. It is further stated
that the plaintiff failed to recover the outstanding dues from several
customers of the defendant company, including LANCO, BHEL,
L&T, which allegedly resulted in substantial financial losses to the
defendant. On this basis, it is contended that the defendant company
is entitled to recover damages from the plaintiff and that the plaintiff
is not entitled to recover any salary dues.
32.8 It is further contended by the defendant that, in view of the
aforesaid facts the present suit is without any cause of action. It is
also averred that the suit, having been filed on 14.10.2020, seeks
recovery of alleged salary arrears for the period 2014 to 2017, and is
thus barred by limitation having been instituted beyond the
prescribed period of three years.
32.9 The plaintiff has sought recovery of arrears of salary. In
order to succeed, the plaintiff is required to establish that he was
employed with the defendant company, the agreed quantam of
salary, and that the said amount was not paid to him. These
foundational facts stand admitted by the defendant. Infact, the
continuance of the plaintiff in the service of the defendant company
till November 2017 stands duly established, inter-alia, the
testimony of DW-1.
32.10 The defendant has resisted the claim of the plaintiff primarily
on the grounds that, by virtue of the office circular datedCS No. 356/2020 Pandey Ujjwal Anand v. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. Page 12 of 28
Digitally signed
by SUGANDHA
SUGANDHA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.30
10:13:37
+0530
27.02.2014, the salaries of all the employees were reduced by upto
50%, and further, that the plaintiff was not diligent in discharge of
his duties and was irregular in attending office.
32.11 As the defendant has pleaded all the aforementioned facts,
therefore the onus was upon the defendant to prove the same. The
principles of burden to prove a particular fact is contained in Section
104 and 106 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. These
provisions are reproduced herein as under:
“104. Burden of proof.–Whoever desires any Court to give
judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the
existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts
exist, and when a person is bound to prove the existence of
any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.
Illustrations.
(a) A desires a Court to give judgment that B shall be
punished for a crime which A says B has committed. A must
prove that B has committed the crime.
(b) A desires a Court to give judgment that he is entitled to
certain land in the possession of B, by reason of facts which
he asserts, and which B denies, to be true. A must prove the
existence of those facts.
106. Burden of proof as to particular fact.–The burden of
proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes
the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by
any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular
person.
Illustration.
A prosecutes B for theft, and wishes the Court to believe that
B admitted the theft to C. A must prove the admission. B
wishes the Court to believe that, at the time in question, he
was elsewhere. He must prove it.
xxxx”
32.12 Therefore, in view of Sections 104 and 106 of the Bhartiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the burden squarely lay upon the
defendant to establish that an office circular dated 27.02.2014 wasCS No. 356/2020 Pandey Ujjwal Anand v. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. Page 13 of 28
Digitally signed
by SUGANDHA
SUGANDHA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.30
10:13:47 +0530
issued, whereby the salaries were reduced by up to 50%. It was
further incumbent upon the defendant to prove that the plaintiff was
irregular in attending his duties and that he failed to discharge his
functions diligently. The defendant has taken a plea that the salary
of the plaintiff was reduced by upto 50% vide office circular dated
27.02.2014. In the written statement, it is stated that the said office
circular was issued to all employees and was never challenged by
the plaintiff. However, the defendant has failed to elaborate the
mode and manner of circulation of the said circular to its
employees.
32.13 The plaintiff, who examined himself as PW-1, has
categorically denied receipt of any such circular and has stated that
no such circular was ever communicated to him. In order to prove
the issuance and communication of the office order dated
27.02.2014, the defendant has examined Sh.Arjun Badruka as
DW-1.
32.14 DW-1 has reiterated in his evidence that the office order
dated 27.02.2014 was issued. However, in his affidavit in
examination-in-chief, DW-1 has not disclosed the mode of
circulation of the said circular to the employees. It has not been
clarified whether the said circular was served individually upon
each employee or was circulated through any common platform,
such as group email or shared communication channel.
32.15 It is only during cross-examination that DW-1 disclosed that
the circular was circulated via email dated 27.02.2014 addressed to
“[email protected].” It has been stated that the said email
ID is accessible to all the employees as well as the management ofCS No. 356/2020 Pandey Ujjwal Anand v. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. Page 14 of 28
Digitally signed
by SUGANDHA
SUGANDHA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.30
10:13:55 +0530
the defendant company. Thus, it is evident that the said circular was
not individually served upon each employee.
32.16 Further the defendant has merely placed on record a printout
of the alleged circular, which has been identified by DW-1 as Ex
DW-1/2. However, the said printout does not bear any endorsement
or authentication to establish that the circular was infact issued on
27.02.2014. As per law, a printout taken from a computer system is
required to be supported by a certificate under Section 63 of
Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (in the present case under
Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act), issued by a competent
person, certifying the manner of its production and the correctness
of its contents by a person who had taken out the printout thereby
authenticating the correctness of the printout.
32.17 As per the record, the defendant has placed on record a
supporting certificate, which has been identified by DW-1 as Ex
DW-1/4. However, the same was objected to on behalf of the
plaintiff on the ground that it was not filed along with the written
statement and was brought on record only at the stage of recording
evidence, without seeking leave of the court. The said objection
was kept open to be adjudicated at the final stage.
32.18 During the course of trial the defendant has failed to disclose
any justification as to why the certificate Ex DW-1/4 was not filed
on record along with the written statement particularly when the
printout Ex DW-1/2 has already been filed at that stage. Even
otherwise, assuming the said certificate is taken into consideration
the same does not satisfy the legal requirements to establish the
genuineness of Ex DW-1/2.
CS No. 356/2020 Pandey Ujjwal Anand v. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. Page 15 of 28
Digitally signed
by SUGANDHA
SUGANDHA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.30
10:14:04 +0530
32.19 Ex DW-1/2 purports to be an office circular dated
27.02.2014, whereas the certificate Ex DW-1/4 reads that the
printout was generated on 01.02.2026. Further, the certificate
clearly states that it has been issued by DW-1, however, in Clause
(C) thereof, DW-1 admits that he is not the person who has taken
the printout of the email annexed with the written statement, and
that the same was taken by some office staff.
32.20 Moreover, DW-1 has admitted in his cross-examination that,
as per the office circular Ex- DW-1/2, the reduction of salary by 50%
was to take effect from 01.04.2014. The statement of salary placed
on record would show that the plaintiff was paid a sum of
Rs.97385/-, in the month of June 2014. Infact, a specific suggestion
to this effect was put to PW-1 during his cross-examination. The
relevant portion of the cross-examination reads as under:-
I have not filed any application for calling the said
attendance record. It is correct that I had hired for a net salary
of Rs.97000/- approximately. I have received the full salary in
the month of June 2014.
At this stage, the plaintiff is shown the para no.5 and 6 of
the plaint alongwith the para no.4 and 5 of affidavit in evidence.
“Wherein it has been stated that the plaintiff has not received the
full salary since the commencement of the job”.
Q. I put it to you that whether the averments in the para no.5
and 6 of the plaint or para no.4 and 5 of the affidavit in evidence
are correct?
Ans. I have received the full salary only twice during the entire
employment.
32.21 A reading of the aforesaid testimony shows that PW-1
stated that he received the full salary in the month of June 2014 and
admitting this fact to be correct he was confronted by the defendant
CS No. 356/2020 Pandey Ujjwal Anand v. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. Page 16 of 28
Digitally signed
by SUGANDHA
AGGARWAL
SUGANDHA
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.30
10:14:11
+0530
with his earlier statement of the plaint claiming that he never
received the full salary. This clearly establish that the defendant
admitted that in June 2014 plaintiff has received net salary of
Rs.97,385/- which was the complete salary. This admission assumes
significance inasmuch as it established that, at least for the month of
June 2014, the plaintiff was paid the complete salary of
approximately Rs.97,385/-. This position is clearly inconsistent with
the stand of the defendant that, pursuant to the alleged office
circular (Ex.DW1/2), effective from 01.04.2014, the salaries of
employees stood reduced by 50%.
32.22 Thus, the conduct of the defendant itself belies its plea
regarding uniform reduction of salary, and casts serious doubt on the
genuineness and implementation of the alleged circular.
Accordingly, the defendant has failed to prove that the salary of the
plaintiff stood reduced in terms of any validly issued and duly
communicated office order.
32.23 The defendant has further averred that out of the total tenure
of three and half years, the plaintiff remained absent from duty for
about fourteen months.
32.24 The onus to prove the aforesaid plea was upon the defendant.
The defendant being the employer, would be in possession of the
attendance record of plaintiff. Despite having taken a categorical
plea that the plaintiff was irregular in attending office and despite
examining DW-1, the defendant has failed to place on record the
attendance register or any documentary evidence in this regard.
32.25 Infact, a suggestion was put during the cross-examination of
PW-1 by the defendant that he had not filed any attendance register
on record. In response, PW-1 stated that he was not in possession of
CS No. 356/2020 Pandey Ujjwal Anand v. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. Page 17 of 28
Digitally signed
by SUGANDHA
SUGANDHA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.30
10:14:19 +0530
the record of the company and therefore, could not produce the
same. Despite this explanation, the defendant did not produce the
attendance record which was admittedly within its custody.
32.26 Further, during cross-examination DW-1 admitted that the
plaintiff used to mark his attendance in the attendance register and
also conceded that the said record has not been filed with the
written statement. This clearly shows that, despite being in
possession of the best evidence, the defendant has withheld the same
without any plausible explanation.
32.27 Accordingly, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn
against the defendant for non-production of the attendance record. In
these circumstances, the defendant has failed to establish its plea
that the plaintiff was irregular in attending office.
32.28 The defendant has also alleged that the plaintiff was not
diligent in discharging his duties. However, the said plea is a bald
assertion, unsupported by any documentary evidence. Although,
DW-1 has reiterated this contention in his testimony, he has not
deposed that he was working with the plaintiff during the relevant
period or that he had any personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s
alleged lack of diligence.
32.29 During cross-examination, DW-1 deposed that the defendant
company had issued several reminders, emails and letters to the
plaintiff for recovery of pending dues from its customers. However,
none of the said communications have been placed on record to
substantiate this claim. A suggestion was also given to DW-1 during
his cross-examination but despite pointing out, the defendant neither
placed any such communication on record nor gave any explanation
for the same. Despite the aforesaid stand, the defendant company has
not placed on record any document to substantiate its contention
that payments were pending to be recovered from its customers.
CS No. 356/2020 Pandey Ujjwal Anand v. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. Page 18 of 28
Digitally signed
by SUGANDHA
SUGANDHA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.30
10:14:26
+0530
Infact, as per the own case of the defendant company, the plaintiff
remained in its employment for approximately three and half years.
In the ordinary course of business, if an employee is irregular in
attending duties or is not discharging his duties diligently, the
employer would ordinarily issue memos or notices in that regard.
32.30 In the present case, neither any action appears to have been
taken by the defendant, nor has any document been placed on record
to evidence the same. Accordingly, the defendant has failed to
prove its plea regarding alleged negligence or lack of diligence on
the part of the plaintiff.
32.31 In view of the aforesaid discussion, it stands established that
the plaintiff had a subsisting cause of action in respect of unpaid
salary dues. However, it remains to be considered whether the claim
of the plaintiff falls within the prescribed period of limitation .
32.32 The plaintiff has claimed arrears of salary for the period
from February 2014 till November 2017. He has instituted the
present suit on 14.10.2020. The limitation in the present case is
governed by Article 7 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963
which prescribes a period of three years from the date when the
wages accrue due.
32.33 Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff
has issued a legal notice dated 27.12.2018 to the defendant. It is
further contended that, from the testimony of DW-1, it stands
established that the plaintiff continued in service of the defendant
company till November 2017. It is also submitted that, as per the
salary ledger placed on record by the defendant itself, the last salary
payment was made till January 2017.
32.34 It is argued that these facts duly establish that the defendant
had continuously failed to pay the salary dues of the plaintiff till
November 2017, thereby giving rise to a continuous cause of action .
CS No. 356/2020 Pandey Ujjwal Anand v. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. Page 19 of 28
Digitally signed
by SUGANDHA
SUGANDHA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.30
10:14:35 +0530
32.35 It is argued on behalf of the plaintiff that, in these
circumstances, the period of limitation ought to be computed from
November 2017, i.e. the date when the plaintiff ceased to be in
service. It is further contended that a fresh cause of action also
accrued in favour of the plaintiff upon service of legal notice dated
27.12.2018 (Ex PW-1/5) upon the defendant. It is also argued that
the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of extension of limitation in
view of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court In Re:
Cognizance for Extension of limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition
(Civil) No.3 of 2020.
32.36 On this basis, it is argued that the suit has been filed within
the period of limitation.
32.37 Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant has argued
that non-payment of salary does not constitute a continuous breach.
It is submitted that each instance of non-payment of monthly salary
gives rise to a separate and distinct cause of action. It is further
contended that, even if it is accepted that the plaintiff continued in
service till November 2017, the institution of the suit in October
2020 would not bring within limitation the claims pertaining to the
salary for the months prior to October 2017. In support of this
contention, reliance has been placed upon certain judicial
precedents.
32.38 It has been correctly pointed out on behalf of the defendant
that the period of limitation is to be computed from the date when
the cause of action arises, and mere service of a legal notice does
not extend the period limitation unless there is a written
acknowledgment of liability by the defendant, or part payment is
made in terms of law.
CS No. 356/2020 Pandey Ujjwal Anand v. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. Page 20 of 28
Digitally signed
by SUGANDHA
SUGANDHA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.30
10:14:43 +0530
32.39 In the present case, it is an admitted position that the last
payment of salary was made in January 2017. There is no material
on record to show any written written acknowledgment by the
defendant admitting its liability to pay the alleged salary dues.
Thus, mere service of legal notice would not extend the period of
limitation.
32.40 The question that now arises for consideration is whether
non-payment of monthly salary can be termed as a continuous
breach so as to give rise to a continuing cause of action, or whether
each default constitutes a recurring breach giving rise to separate
cause of action. This distinction has been elaborated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh, SLP (C) Nos.
3820-3821 of 2008, wherein it has been held as under:
4. The principles underlying continuing wrongs and
recurring/ successive wrongs have been applied to service law
disputes. A `continuing wrong’ refers to a single wrongful act
which causes a continuing injury. `Recurring/successive
wrongs’ are those which occur periodically, each wrong
giving rise to a distinct and separate cause of action. This
Court in Balakrishna S.P. Waghmare vs. Shree Dhyaneshwar
Maharaj Sansthan – [AIR 1959 SC 798], explained the
concept of continuing wrong (in the context of section 23 of
Limitation Act, 1908 corresponding to section 22 of
Limitation Act, 1963) :
“It is the very essence of a continuing wrong that it is an act
which creates a continuing source of injury and renders the
doer of the act responsible and liable for the continuance of
the said injury. If the wrongful act causes an injury which is
complete, there is no continuing wrong even though the
damage resulting from the act may continue. If, however, a
wrongful act is of such a character that the injury caused by it
itself continues, then the act constitutes a continuing wrong.
In this connection, it is necessary to draw a distinction
between the injury caused by the wrongful act and what may
be described as the effect of the said injury.”
In M. R. Gupta vs. Union of India [1995 (5) SCC 628], the
appellant approached the High Court in 1989 with a
grievance in regard to his initial pay fixation with effect from
CS No. 356/2020 Pandey Ujjwal Anand v. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. Page 21 of 28
Digitally signed
by SUGANDHA
SUGANDHA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.30
10:14:52 +0530
1.8.1978. The claim was rejected as it was raised after 11
years. This Court applied the principles of continuing wrong
and recurring wrongs and reversed the decision. This Court
held :
“The appellant’s grievance that his pay fixation was not in
accordance with the rules, was the assertion of a continuing
wrong against him which gave rise to a recurring cause of
action each time he was paid a salary which was not
computed in accordance with the rules. So long as the
appellant is in service, a fresh cause of action arises every
month when he is paid his monthly salary on the basis of a
wrong computation made contrary to rules. It is no doubt true
that if the appellant’s claim is found correct on merits, he
would be entitled to be paid according to the properly fixed
pay scale in the future and the question of limitation would
arise for recovery of the arrears for the past period. In other
words, the appellant’s claim, if any, for recovery of arrears
calculated on the basis of difference in the pay which has
become time barred would not be recoverable, but he would
be entitled to proper fixation of his pay in accordance with
rules and to cessation of a continuing wrong if on merits his
claim is justified. Similarly, any other consequential relief
claimed by him, such as, promotion etc., would also be
subject to the defence of laches etc. to disentitle him to those
reliefs. The pay fixation can be made only on the basis of the
situation existing on 1.8.1978 without taking into account any
other consequential relief which may be barred by his laches
and the bar of limitation. It is to this limited extent of proper
pay fixation, the application cannot be treated as time
barred………”
In Shiv Dass vs. Union of India – 2007 (9) SCC 274, this
Court held:
“The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort
to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause
confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new
injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after
unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not
only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third
parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is
invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third
party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also
weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to
exercise such jurisdiction.
CS No. 356/2020 Pandey Ujjwal Anand v. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. Page 22 of 28
Digitally signed
by SUGANDHA
AGGARWAL
SUGANDHA
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.30
10:15:00
+0530
In the case of pension the cause of action actually continues
from month to month. That, however, cannot be a ground to
overlook delay in filing the petition………. If petition is filed
beyond a reasonable period say three years normally the
Court would reject the same or restrict the relief which could
be granted to a reasonable period of about three years.”
5. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim
will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where
remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where
remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative
Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases
relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim
is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if
there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the
date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such
continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But
there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in
respect of any order or administrative decision which related
to or affected several others also, and if the re-opening of the
issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the
claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates
to payment or re-fixation of pay or pension, relief may be
granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third
parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or
promotion etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim
stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. In so
far as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past
period, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs
will apply. As a consequence, High Courts will restrict the
consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period
of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.
32.41 In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
declined the claim for payment of disability pension from the date it
became due, on account of delay of 16 years. The said judgment
draws a distinction between a continuing cause of action and a
recurring cause of action. It clarified that a continuing cause of
action arises where there is a continuing breach or continuous
infringement of a right, resulting in a subsisting and ongoing injury.
In such case, the wrongful act is of such a nature that it continues
from day to day.
32.42 On the other hand, a recurring cause of action arises where
CS No. 356/2020 Pandey Ujjwal Anand v. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. Page 23 of 28
Digitally signed
by SUGANDHA
AGGARWAL
SUGANDHA
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.30
10:15:07
+0530
individual wrongful acts occur periodically, each giving rise to a
separate and complete cause of action. In such cases, each default
constitutes an independent injury, complete in itself.
32.43 It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of
India Vs. Tarsem Singh (supra) that non-payment or part payment
of monthly salary does not constitute a continuing wrong but gives
rise to a recurring cause of action. Each instance of non-payment of
salary for a particular month constitutes a complete breach, entitling
the employee to sue for recovery of such salary within a period of
three years from the date when the salary for that month became
due.
32.44 In view of the aforesaid legal position, in the present case, it
cannot be held that there was continuing breach on the part of the
defendant in respect of non-payment of salary. The plaintiff has
claimed arrears of salary for the period from February 2014 to
November 2017. Admittedly, the last payment of salary was made in
January 2017. In view of the settled legal position that non-payment
of monthly salary gives rise to a recurring cause of action, the
limitation for each unpaid month would commence from the date
when such salary became due. Thus, any claim pertaining to salary
which became due prior to three years from the date of institution of
the suit would be barred by limitation. Accordingly, where the suit
has been instituted on 15.10.2020, the claim for arrears of salary
prior to October 2017 would be barred by limitation. Consequently,
the claim of the plaintiff for arrears of salary for the period February
2014 to September 2017 is ex facie barred by limitation.
32.45 The plaintiff has also sought the benefit of extension of
limitation in terms of the orders passed by the Hon’ble SupremeCS No. 356/2020 Pandey Ujjwal Anand v. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. Page 24 of 28
Digitally signed
by SUGANDHA
AGGARWAL
SUGANDHA
Date:
AGGARWAL 2026.04.30
10:15:15
+0530
Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of limitation, Suo
Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 during the Covid-19
pandemic. The Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down certain
directions extending the period of limitation in all proceedings,
having regard to the extraordinary situation arising out of the
pandemic. The relevant principles governing such extension are as
follows: —
2. Considering the reduction in prevalence of
COVID-19 virus and normalcy being restored, the
following order was passed in the Suo Motu
proceedings on 08.03.2021:
1. In computing the period of limitation for any
suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period
from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand
excluded. Consequently, the balance period of
limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall
become available with effect from 15.03.2021.
2. In cases where the limitation would have expired
during the period between 15.03.2020 till
14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance
period of limitation remaining, all persons shall
have a limitation period of 90 days from
15.03.2021. In the event the actual balance period
of limitation remaining, with effect from
15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer
period shall apply.
3. The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall
also stand excluded in computing the periods
prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section
12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 andCS No. 356/2020 Pandey Ujjwal Anand v. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. Page 25 of 28
Digitally signed
by SUGANDHA
AGGARWAL
SUGANDHA
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.30
10:15:22
+0530
provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other
laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for
instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which
the court or tribunal can condone delay) and
termination of proceedings.
4. The Government of India shall amend the
guidelines for containment zones, to state.
“Regulated movement will be allowed for
medical emergencies, provision of essential goods
and services, and other necessary functions, such
as, time bound applications, including for legal
purposes, and educational and job-related
requirements.”
32.46 If the aforesaid exemptions are applied, the case of the
plaintiff would fall within the second category of cases covered
under the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo
motu proceedings. In such circumstances, while computing the
period of limitation, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 is
liable to be excluded.
32.47 However, even after granting the benefit of the said
exclusion, the claim of the plaintiff would remain governed by the
principle that each month’s unpaid salary gives rise to a separate
cause of action. Accordingly, the limitation for recovery of salary
dues would extend to a period of three years prior to the date of
institution of the suit, subject to the aforesaid exclusion.
32.48 In view thereof, the claim of the plaintiff for salary dues
from March 2017 onwards would fall within the period of
CS No. 356/2020 Pandey Ujjwal Anand v. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. Page 26 of 28
Digitally signed
by SUGANDHA
SUGANDHA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.30
10:15:31 +0530
limitation. Accordingly, the plaintiff is held entitled to recover his
salary dues for the period from March 2017 till 15.11.2017.
All the issues at hand are decided in terms of aforesaid
findings.
Issue no. 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest as prayed in
the prayer clause (a) of the plaint? OPP
33. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The
plaintiff has claimed the interest @ 18% per annum on his salary
dues from the date when his salary became due till actual
realisation. There is no agreed rate of interest between the parties.
The interest @ 18% per annum as prayed by the plaintiff shall be
exhilarated. I am the of considered view that the interest @ 6% shall
serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, interest @ 6% is awarded on
the salary of each month from the date when it became due till filing
of the suit.
33.1 Plaintiff is also awarded interest @ 6% on the total
recoverable principal amount from the date of filing of the suit till
actual realisation.
RELIEF:
34. In view of the above discussion the suit is partly decreed in
favour of the plaintiff and decree for recovery of salary dues @
Rs.97385/- from March 2017 till 15.11.2017 is passed in favour of
the plaintiff.
34.1 Plaintiff is also held entitled for interest @ 6% on the salary
of each month from the date when it became due till filing of the
CS No. 356/2020 Pandey Ujjwal Anand v. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. Page 27 of 28
Digitally signed
by SUGANDHA
AGGARWAL
SUGANDHA
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.30
10:15:39
+0530
suit.
34.2 Plaintiff is also awarded interest @ 6% on the total
recoverable principal amount from the date of filing of the suit till
actual realisation.
34.3 Cost of litigation is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
35. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to
record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed
by SUGANDHA
SUGANDHA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.30
10:15:52 +0530
(Dr. Sugandha Aggarwal)
District Judge-04,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
This judgment contains 28 pages and all pages have
been duly signed by me.
Announced in the open court on
30th April 2026
(Dr. Sugandha Aggarwal)
District Judge-04,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CS No. 356/2020 Pandey Ujjwal Anand v. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. Page 28 of 28
[ad_1]
Source link
