YESHWANT RAGHUNATH MULAY Vs. MOTOR INDUSTRIES COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, whose suit bearing O.S.No.132/2007 filed against the defendants for recovery of money in the Court of the XXXI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, (CCH-14) (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "Trial Court") wherein during the pendency of the suit, defendant Nos.2 and 3 came to be deleted, was dismissed by the Trial Court by its impugned judgment and decree dated 02-11-2012. It is against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the Trial Court was that, he was working in the defendant (the present respondent) - Company as a Manager. The defendant - Company selected him and fourteen others for receiving advanced training including in particular to study, acclimatise and gain the required skill and knowledge for the implementation of System Application and Products (SAP) Project in its parent Company - Robert Bosch GmbH, Germany, for a period of six months. He was asked to execute a Bond towards the said training, undertaking that he shall diligently undergo and complete the training and would return to India immediately upon completion of the training and support the defendant - Company for the SAP Project. The training period was for a period of six months. The knowledge imparted to him in the training was required to be implemented in India by him in his work in SAP Project. It was also mentioned in the Bond that after acquiring such skills, if the employee deserts the Company, he shall be liable for the amount mentioned in the Bond. Accordingly, the plaintiff left India on 06-03-2005 to Germany on deputation to undergo training.

(3.) The defendant - Company filed its Written Statement through its counsel wherein it contended that, there was no discrimination between the plaintiff and other members of the Project and all were treated equally. The defendant contended that due to business need, the plaintiff's deputation period was reduced. It also contended that the plaintiff submitted his resignation letter dated 28-04-2006 which was within a period of seventeen months from the date of deputation (i.e. 06-03-2005) and as per condition No.3 of the Bond, the plaintiff was required to pay 100% of the cost of deputation. The plaintiff ought not to have resigned during the period when the Bond was subsisting. It was further contended that the plaintiff was liable to pay the liquidated damages for the breach of the terms of the Bond conditions. The deputation for training was based on the business requirement. The plaintiff had no inalterable right to be continued for six months training at Germany. It was also contended that no harassment was caused to the plaintiff at any time when he was in the services of the defendant - Company. It further stated that the plaintiff had violated the terms of the Bond and just because the defendant insisted for the terms of the Bond conditions, the plaintiff has made unwarranted allegations to wriggle out of the contract signed by him.