NIRULA BROTHERS PRIVATE LTD. Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR KHURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference to the Division Bench has arisen in revision petition filed by Messrs. Narula Brothers Private Limited, Defendant against K.K. Khurana, Plaintiff from the order of Sub -Judge 1st Class, Gurgaon, dated March 31, 1970, holding that that Court had jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for recovery of Rs. 3,295.50 claimed on account of arrears of his salary.

(2.) THE Defendant is a limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act. It has its Head Office at New Delhi. It runs a factory at Gurgaon. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant on October 25, 1966 as Administrative Officer in charge of the factory at Gurgaon. He resigned on September 18, 1968. The Plaintiff filed the suit at Gurgaon on July 29, 1969. In para 7 of the plaint, the Plaintiff stated that the cause of action arose to the Plaintiff for recovery of the salary on the dates, when it had to be paid to the Plaintiff, that the Plaintiff had been appointed at Gurgaon and that he worked for gain there and consequently the Court at Gurgaon had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Defendant, a preliminary objection was raised that the Defendant was a limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and that the Plaintiff had been appointed at New Delhi and not at Gurgaon. It added that he used to receive salary from the office at New Delhi and hence the Court at Gurgaon had no jurisdiction.

(3.) ONE of the issues framed on the pleadings of the parties was as to whether the Court at Gurgaon had no jurisdiction to try the suit. This issue was tried by the Court as a preliminary issue. Both the parties led evidence. Jiteridar Mehta D.W. 1 appeared on behalf of the Defendant -company. He is Manager of the Company. He stated that the factory of the Defendant -company is situate at Gurgaon that right from the date the Plaintiff was appointed as an Administrative Officer upto the date he resigned, he worked at Gurgaon as Administrative Officer. He stated that the Plaintiff used to be issued receipts for the salary. He admitted that he personally never paid any salary to the Plaintiff. This witness also admitted that the factory situate at Gurgaon was registered under the Indian Factories Act, 1948 and that all labour disputes pertaining to the factory were referred to the Conciliation Officer at Gurgaon and that all industrial and labour returns were submitted from the office of the factory at Gurgaon. The Plaintiff himself went into the witness box as P.W. 1. He stated that he was incharge of the factory in the capacity of its Administrative Officer at Gurgaon that while functioning there right from the date of his appointment, he was paid his salary at Gurgaon and that he used to issue receipts to the Defendant -company for the salary received by him at Gurgaon. In course of his cross -examination, he emphatically denied the suggestion put to him that he used to go to Delhi to receive his salary. It is the Defendant -company, who were in custody of the various documents pointing out to the place where the Plaintiff was receiving his salary. They have withheld those documents from the Court. The burden of this preliminary issue was upon the Defendant to show that the Court at Gurgaon had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and, therefore, the Defendant had to establish that the salary was not being received by and paid to the Plaintiff at Gurgaon but at New Delhi. It has been averred on behalf of the Defendant company that the salary was being paid to the Plaintiff by cheques in their Head Office at New Delhi. No such documentary evidence has been produced. The documentary evidence relating to this issue having been withheld by the Defendant -company, no importance could be attached to the oral assertion of Jitendar Mehta that the salary was being paid to the Plaintiff at New Delhi. It is admittedly the case of the Defendant -company that the Plaintiff right from the date of his appointment to the date of resignation worked as Administrative Officer at Gurgaon. Being Administrative Officer, he was in charge of the administrative work of the office pertaining to the factory set up by the Defendant -company at Gurgaon. in the absence of any contract to the contrary and hone has been proved on the file on behalf of the Defendant -company, the salary would be payable to the Plaintiff at the place, where he carried on his work as an Administrative Officer. It has also been stated by the Plaintiff that he had been allotted a house at Gurgaon and that he resided there in that house and the rent of that house was being paid by the Defendant -company.