ASHEESH MAHAJAN Vs. DELTRON LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Chandigarh on 13.2.1998 granting conditional leave to defend to the defendant applicant.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the applicant had already executed a bond in favour of the plaintiff and as such the learned Court has erred in imposing a condition of furnishing a surety bond of the suit amount. In order to appreciate the merit of this contention reference to basic facts would be necessary.

(3.) Petitioner herein, defendant in the suit, was employed on 13.6.1995 as an Engineer Trainee with the plaintiff-Company on a basic salary of Rs. 3,400/- per month along with other benefits as per terms and conditions of the employment. The petitioner was specifically provided that he would have to serve for a period of two years, at least, after the completion of probation period of one year. In default of Clauses 3 and 7 of the agreement, the petitioner was liable to pay liquidated damages and also the salary for at least 3 years on the basis of last drawn salary at the time of leaving employment by the petitioner. These terms and conditions in the form of an agreement and bond were executed by the petitioner on 17.8.1995. The plaintiff, as such, was to serve for a minimum period of 3 years from the date of joining, it is alleged by the present respondent that the petitioner started absenting himself from duty w.e.f. 3.2.1996 and he was called upon to report for duty vide letters dated 14.2.1996 and 21.2.1996 but of no consequence. Later, the respondent also learnt that the petitioner had joined M/s NODE Limited. Thus, giving cause to the plaintiff to file the present suit on the basis of written agreement dated 17.8.1995 under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner filed an application for leave to defend after having been served with the summons in the suit. The petitioner raised various preliminary objections including that no proper summons were served upon the defendant in accordance with the provisions of Order 37 and also pleaded that he was thrown out of the employment and he had not committed breach of the terms of agreement. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 13.2.1998 granted the conditional leave to the petitioner to defend the suit.