Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that internal management correspondence cannot displace the express terms of a written contract individually addressed to and signed by an employee, dismissing a former senior employee’s suit for recovery of alleged deferred salary. It was on the ground that her signed acceptance of a letter characterising the salary reduction as a “restructuring” and an “interim measure” without any protest or objection, was binding, notwithstanding internal emails using the terminology “deferred salary”.
The Court further held that an unquantified CEO letter expressing a general commitment to clear dues, without identifying their nature or referencing any deferment or bonus, does not crystallise into an enforceable obligation. The employee’s failure to claim outstanding dues at resignation, over a year after the alleged repayment date, materially undermined her case.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “The Plaintiff has placed reliance upon the e-mail dated 09.07.2002 Ex. PW-2/1, addressed by the CEO of the Defendant Company to the Vice President HR, which uses the terminology ‘deferred salary’. However, the said e-mail is an internal management communication, not addressed to or signed by the Appellant. The only document communicated to and signed by the Appellant on the subject of the salary reduction is Ex. D-1, which characterises the arrangement as a ‘re-structure’. Internal management correspondence, cannot displace the express terms of the written contract between the parties”.
“…the Plaintiff continued in service of the Defendant Company for over fifteen months, after the alleged date of accrual of the deferred salary on 01.04.2003, and ultimately resigned on 22.07.2004. The Experience Certificate Ex. P-1 records that she left the services “on her own accord.” If it was indeed a case of deferment, there is no reason why she would not have protested, insisted or claimed her outstanding dues at the time of her resignation, particularly since the alleged due date of 01.04.2003 had passed well over a year earlier”, the Bench observed.
Advocate S.C. Anand appeared for the appellant and Advocate Venancio D’Costa appeared for the respondent.
The appellant, Anju Dhawan, joined the respondent company, M/s Aithent Technologies Pvt. Ltd., on October 01, 1993 as Senior Member, Consulting Staff, and resigned on July 22, 2004. During the financial year 2002–2003, the company, citing a liquidity crunch aggravated by the aftermath of the September 2001 events and delayed payments from overseas affiliated entities, reduced salaries of employees drawing above Rs.12,000 per month on a graded scale.
As the appellant drew Rs.67,500 per month, 30% of her salary, amounting to Rs.20,250 per month, was reduced for twelve months, aggregating to Rs.2,43,000. She claimed this constituted a deferment repayable on April 01, 2003, along with a promised bonus of one month’s salary of Rs.67,500, totalling Rs.3,10,500.
At the time of resignation, the appellant claimed terminal dues including gratuity, leave encashment, car rental and reimbursements amounting to ₹4,05,498. She later filed a civil suit before the ADJ, Delhi, seeking recovery of ₹9,09,593 with interest, alleging deferment of salary. During the proceedings, the company admitted liability for terminal dues and paid ₹3,96,860 after tax deductions in three instalments, which was accepted by her.
The ADJ dismissed the suit on April 9, 2024, holding that no enforceable agreement for repayment of reduced salary was proved, leading to the present appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI CPC.
The Court’s analysis turned principally on the letter dated April 01, 2002, the only contemporaneous document individually addressed to and signed by the appellant at the inception of the disputed arrangement.
“…while reduction of salary during the relevant period stands admitted, the Appellant/Plaintiff failed to establish that such reduction merely constituted a deferment creating a legally enforceable obligation to repay the amount at a later date”, the Bench said.
“It is not disputed that there were discussions regarding payment of a one month’s salary bonus to employees. However, the Appellant/Plaintiff has failed to place on record any material to establish that the said bonus crystallised into a binding contractual obligation. The consistent stand of the Respondent has been that the same was contemplated only as an incentive and not as a legal commitment. In the absence of any document or other cogent evidence demonstrating that the bonus became payable as a matter of right, the claim towards compensation bonus cannot be sustained”, the Bench noted.
Accordingly, the claim for compensation bonus equally failed in the absence of any document establishing it as a contractual right rather than a contingent incentive. On terminal dues, since these had been paid during the suit’s pendency, the surviving claims for interest and an alleged balance of Rs.9,838 were rejected, interest because the appellant had herself declined the cheque tendered in September 2005, and the balance because no computation supporting it had been placed on record.
The appeal was dismissed, along with all pending applications, in its entirety. No further directions were issued with respect to the terminal dues, which had already been satisfied during the pendency of the suit.
Cause Title: Anju Dhawan v. M/S. Aithent Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5120)
Appearances:
Appellant: S.C. Anand, Advocate.
Respondent: Venancio D’Costa and Gauri Goel, Advocates.
Click here to read/download the Judgment
© Copyright 2022, All rights reserved.
Powered by Hocalwire
Leave a Reply