YOGESH BHATIA Vs. RTC RESTAURANTS (INDIA) LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against an order dated 27.11.2009 passed by the Trial Court whereby an application of the defendant (petitioner herein) under Order 37 Rule 5 CPC was disposed of and conditional leave to defend was granted to the petitioner on the condition of his depositing a sum of Rs. 1.75 lac (50% of the suit amount) in the Court within 45 days.

(2.) The respondent had filed a suit under Order 37 CPC on the basis of a written agreement between the parties which the petitioner entered into with the respondent at the time of taking employment with respondent. Vide this contract, the petitioner had agreed that it would serve the respondent for a period of three years minimum. The petitioner was also to undergo training in USA during this period of service at the expense of the respondent. It was provided that in case the petitioner did not serve the respondent for stipulated period of three years, he shall pay a sum of Rs. 3.5 lac to the respondent. The petitioner had taken a defence before the Trial Court that the petitioner was not willing to undergo the training since at that time he was blessed with a baby daughter and he needed some time to spend with his wife and newborn child but the respondent failed to understand this and coerced him to undergo the training. He agreed to undergo the training under these circumstances and he also was made to sign the agreement and furnish a guarantee of Rs. 3.5 lac under coercion. The respondent denied all the assertions. The Trial Court considered all the documents filed by the parties. One of the documents, filed by the respondent was the resignation letter dated 17.5.2008 addressed by the petitioner to the respondent which reads as under:

(3.) It is not the contention of the petitioner that he had written resignation letter under coercion. After considering the resignation written by the petitioner, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the defence taken by the petitioner was a sham defence and the petitioner was not truthful. The tenor of letter shows that he had resigned from the company for better opportunities. The Trial Court also considered that the defendant (petitioner) had at no stage protested against the plaintiff company (respondent herein) about any harassment, torture, ill treatment etc. The Trial Court found no force in the defence raised however, still granted conditional leave to defend.