YOGENDRA PATWARDHAN Vs. KHANDELWAL HERMANN ELECTRONICS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is filed by the defendant against an order, on a Summons for Judgement, granting conditional leave to defend, on deposit of the full amount of claim in the suit.

(2.) The plaintiffs had employed the present petitioner as a sales engineer under a letter of appointment dated January 6, 1986. While in service the plaintiffs came to know that there was to be a fair in West Germany. The plaintiff decided to send some of their workmen and personnel to the said fair. It is the plaintiffs case that before selecting the personnel to attend the fair, it was made clear to each person including the defendant that the plaintiffs were sending their employees to the said fair with the sole object of acquiring the know-how for the benefit of the plaintiffs company and with that object in mind the plaintiff informed them that they would be spending large amounts for the said tour, per person. The plaintiff desired that the persons who acquired such knowledge should remain with the plaintiffs Company for a minimum period of one year. As a guarantee for the same, apart from individual oral assurance, the plaintiffs had requested the defendant and other members of the group to execute an undertaking in writing in favour of the plaintiff. If is their case that the defendant accordingly gave the necessary undertaking which is dated October 29, 1986. The said undertaking stipulated that the defendant should be in their employment till November 30, 1987 and if the defendant were to leave the services of the plaintiffs without their prior consent and within the aforesaid period, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 12,000/-. The suit is based on this writing. The allegation is that immediately after the return from. West Germany on or about December 8, 1986, the defendant resigned from the plaintiffs employment. The plaintiffs have filed the suit on the basis of the said writing that the defendant has committed breach of the said undertaking.

(3.) The defence is that the defendant had signed the said writing under compulsion and the tour was not for the purpose of learning any technique but it was sightseeing tour. He further alleges that he was compelled to sign the writing. While certain others wre taken abroad without any such writing.