The High Court · 2025

Judgment

fer the Llon'ble Sn Justice K. Lakshman) Heard Sri K. Ramakrishna, learn: I counsel representing Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, learr ed counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri P. Girish Kur rar, learned counsel appeadng for the respondent

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfred with th : judgment and decree dated 26.09.201i in O.S.No.74 of ),)O7 passed by learned IX Additional Chief Judge (FTC), Cit'r Civil Court at Hyderabad, defendant therein preferred t re present appeal

3. Respondent herein had hled a suit in O S.No.74 of 2007 against the appellant-company to recover ar amount of Rs.11,98,906/- together with interest @ 18% )er annum from the date of the suit till the date of realizatior and costs. He has mentioned the details of the said pa1 ment tabular form in page Nos.6 and 7 of the p r int. Thus, according to him, an amount of Rs.4,93,619 l- ts towards emplover contribution for superannuatior amoun t, 1 I\ 2 KL,J & VRKII,J ccca 18 2012 Rs.1,34,978/- is accrued interest @ 9o/o on the above said l5 % of employer contribution amount payable by LIC, interest @ I8o/o per zrnnum from 16.01.2002 to 18.12.2006 i.e., Rs.5,56,309/- and notice charges of Rs. 5000/- and in a-ll Rs. 11,89,906/- is to be paid towards superannuation along with interest

It is contended by respondent=plaintiff that tte was appointed as a Representative by the appellant-defendant- company on 14.L2.1987 uide Ex.Al, appointment order. ThereaJter, he was promoted as Director (Commercial). Respondent has submitted resignation on 01.01.2O02 and the same was accepted by the appellant-company and accordingly it has issued relieving order dated 16.0l .2OO2 i.e., Ex.A2. Ex.A3 is also a relieving letter containing endorsement of respondent-plaintiff. Thereafter, respondent- plaintiff has submitted Ex.A4, letter dated 04.03.2002 to the appellant-company with a request to settle his dues According to the respondentplaintiff, appellant-defendant has not paid the said dues. Appella-nt-company had issued Ex.AS, reply to the respondent-plaintiff enclosing a cheque bearing No.065748 dated 08.O3.2OO2 for an amount of -t l KL,J & VRKR.J ccca IE 2012 Rs.4,16,77O/- against full and final settleme I . of a-11 his accounts. In Ex.A5, appellant-company specilically mentioned with regard to respondent's en t tlement of superannuation, if any, gratuity, if admissit I :, IS being assessed and it will get back to the respondent plaintiff on the said subject. Thereafter, appellant-compan'/ has issued Ex.A6, letter dated 17.06.2OO2 to the responden: stating that the company has reviewed the situation and as per the records, the last payment made by the appellar t company, into the scheme, was ln September, 1993 . It ,vas only a limited number of named employees and they a- , entitled to the sarne. Therefore, appellant-company ir 1 trmed the respondent that he is not entitled for the said sct eme on par with the other employees. Ex.A7 is a letter subrr tted by the respondent-plaintiff to the appellant-company rv t h a request to settle the payment of gratuity under suF ( rannuation scheme. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said letter, appellant-company did not settle the said am r unt to the re sponden t-plaintiff.

5. On the other hand, the appellant-companv had issued Ex.A8, letter dated 2B.OI.2OO3, reiterating the ;aid stand, l i .l 4 KL.J & VRKR,J ccca l8 2012 informed the respondent that he is not entitled for interest @15% of superannuation scheme and also for gratuity. Thereafter, respon{ent has submitted another letter dated

04.08.2003 under Ex.A9 to the appellant-company with a request to pay the said amounts. The respondent has issued legal notice dated 07.08.2003 to appellant herein demanding payment of the said amount. Instead of paying the said amount, the appellant-company issued reply dated

05.11.2006 stating that the claim made by the respondent is barred by limitation and that superannuation scheme was discontinued. Respondent is not entitled for the same. Therefore, the respondent has filed the aforesaid suit against the appellant-company for recovery of the aforesaid amount.

6. Appellant-company filed written statement in the said suit contending that the said suit was barred by limitation and that respondent-plaintiff is not entitled for the said amount, since it has discontinued the superannuation scheme.

7. Thereafter, respondent-plaintiff examined himself has PW-l arld filed Ex.Al to A16 documents in support of his claim. To disprove the said claim, appellant-company f a 5 KL,J & VRKR,J ccca 18 2012 examined its Legal Manager as DW-1 and filed !x.81, Trust Deed dated 18.06.1997. On consideration ol the entire evidence, learned trial Court decreed the saic suit in part with costs for an amount of Rs. 1 I,89,906 / - t )gether u,ith future interest @ 12% per annum from the d:t e of suit till the date of decree on the principle amount of Il;.6,28,597 I - and interest (l 60/o per annum from the date of I :cree till the date of rea-lization.

8. Challenging the said Judgment, appelli nt-company preferred the present Appeal. Vide order datec 10.O4.2012, this Court granted interim suspension of oper rtion of the said Judgment and decree on condition that t: -- appellant- company shall deposit 5oo/o of the decreeta-l ar rount along with costs in full to the credit of the said suit lv 1-rin a period of six (6) weeks from the said date. This Court rlso made it clear that in default of the deposit, the stay grrr rted therein shall stand dissolved forthwith on occurrence of the default. Vide Order dated 20.07.2012, this Court pe -mirted the respondent-plaintiff to withdraw the said arnor.Lr rt deposited by the appellant-company. l 6 KL.J & VRKR,J ccca 18 2012

9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-company, on instructions would submit that appellant-company has already deposited the said amount in compliance with the aforesaid order, whereas, learned counsel appearing for respondent-plaintiff confirmed the said fact and that the respondent-plaintiff withdrew the said amount. 1O. In the light of the same, the issues for consideration by this Court are: i) Whether the suit is bared by limitation? ii) Wlrcther the respondent-plairutiff is entitled for the aforesaid amount as claimed by Ltim in the said suit? iii) Whether the impugned Judgment and decree iru O.S.No.74 of 2OO7 dated 26.09.2011 passed bg the learned X Additional Cltief Judge (FTC), Cttg Ciuil Court at Hgderabad is sustainable ? ia) To uthat relief

11. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant- company and learned counsel for respondent at length. We have perused the record. 1 KL,J & VRK&J ccca l13 2012 L2. As discussed supra, there is no dispute w:t r regard to respondent joining with the appellant-compe ny as an Executive under Ex.A 1-appointment letter dated t4.12.2002 and that he was promoted to the post ( f Director (Commercial). He has submitted the resignatio:.r letter and relieved from the appellant-company uide Ex t ,2-relieving order. Ex.A3 is the copy of the endorsement on : re relieving letter. Thereafter, he has requested the appellar t-comparty to pay the aforesaid payment i..., @ 15% sup: 'annuation scheme along with interest. Appellant-company lenied the said payment on the ground that the corl pany has dispensed with the said scheme arrd that the stLi : is barred by limitation. On the aforesaid two grounds. Appellartt- company has also filed written statement in the sa d lines.

13. In the light of the same, it is relevant to n rte that in Ex.Al5 reply notice sent by appellant-company .o Ex.A13, legal notice dated 07-08-2006, appeliant-corr pany has contended that respondent is in senior ManzLl ,er Cadre, appeilalt-company has dispensed with/discort nued the said superalnuation scheme in the year 1996 itr; respondent being in the Senior Manager cadre is l 'lf ald the ;lly aware of discontinuation of superannuation scheme ir the year 8 KLJ & VRI<X.J ccca lE 2012 \ 1996 itself. The said fact was made known to all the employees of appellalt-company by issuing revised "Employees hand book" excluding superannuation benefit.

14. In Ex.A8, reply sent by appellant to the letter dated

04.01.2003 of the respondent, appellant specifically stated that the appellant-company had a sole-uniform and universal policy of superannuation for all its employees. The said scheme was hrst introduced in July 1987 i.e., prior to respondent joining in appellant-company and the sarne was discontinued in the year 1989. The said scheme was reintroduced in the year 1993 and in the same year it was discontinued for the second time, ln the year 1996. The superannuation scheme as documented under the Trust Deed and rules framed thereunder reserved the compaly's right to discontinue making contribution to the scheme at any time. It placed the appellant-company under no obligation to maintain the master policy after the discontinuance of the contributions

15. It is further stated that the said superannuation the appellalt-company (under group scheme of superannuation policy of LIC) became inoperative, there were ar' --a 9 KL,J & VRK&J ccca l8 2012 no accretions to the funds of the Trust constitutec in respect thereof. As a natural and obvious consequerl:e, it was decided by the Trustees to wind up the said d': unct trust and distribute the accumulated Trust funds strictly in accorclance with the provisions of the concerned lrust Deed and the Indian Trust Act, 1882.

16. Though the appellant contended that the :; Lid scheme was discontinued, the said fact was made knov'l L to all the employees of the Company by issuing revised Empioyees hald book" excluding superannuation beneht, produced any documents and it has not ex I witnesses. It has examined DW-1, l,egal Mana3 it has not nined any :r who did not speak about the said facts. DW- t has n: : fiIed any document in proof of the same including discorLr inuation of the said scheme in the year 1989 and reintrodrt :tion of the scheme in the year 1993 and also discontinuatior of the said scheme second time. She has only frled copy of I )x.B 1-Trust Deed dated 08.06.1987 and the same is of no ur; :. Therefore in the absence of the said evidence, botl documenta4r, the contention of the appellant tt oral and at the said scheme was discontinued and therefore, the r': rpondent is l0 KL,J & VRKR,J ccca 18 2012 \. not entitled for benefits under the said scheme is not acceptable. On consideration of the said aspects particularly, the erridence both ora-l and docume ntary , uide impugned Judgment and decree dated 26.09.2O11, learned trial Court decreed the aforesaid suit L7 . With regard to the other contention of the appellant that the present suit is barred by limitation, it is relevalt to note that appellant has submitted the resignation on OI.O1.2OO2, the same was accepted and he was relieved uide Ex.A2-relieving letter. Thereafter, he has submitted the aforesaid letters to the appellant with a request to pay the said amount. So far it was not paid.

18. It is also apt to note that appellarlt had sent a demand dralt uide number 576620/T T dated 22.12.2003 for an amount of Rs.3,016/- drawn on State Bank of Travancore, Hyderabad, under Ex.A12 through registered post envelope dated 21.01.2001 containing letter dated 25.1 1.2003. It was served on the respondent on 21.01.2004. Thus appellant paid the said amount of Rs.3,O16/-to the respondent towards superannuation beneht. Thereafter, he has hled the aforesaid suit on 19.72.2006. As discussed supra, I( ---------------- -,/? ./a' II KL,J & VRKR,J ccca 18 2012 respondent had filed the aforesaid suit seekinll recovery of the aforesaid arnount from the appellant. Thus, te has hled the aforesaid suit within limitation. L9. It is also apt to note that on receiving E>.. t2-relieving letter, he has made correspondence with tht appellant- company by sending Ex.A4 dated 04.03.2003, l)x.A7 dated

04.01.2003, Ex.A9 dated 04.08.2003 and aprellant had issued reply under Ex.AS letter dated 08.03..C03, Ex.A6 dated 17.06.2OO2 and Ex.A8 dated 28.Ol.2OOa. There is also a letter dated 25.11.2003 issued by appt llant under Ex.A10. Respondent got issued Ex.A13 legal r Lotice dated

07.08.2006 to the appellant seeking the aforesrr d payment. He has filed Ex.A14 postal acknowledgement card dated

09.08.2006 to show that Ex.A13 legal notice r,r,'a s served on the appellant. Appellant has issued Ex.A15 'eply dated

05.11.2006 to the Ex.A13 legal notice dated )7.08.2006. Thus, appellant continuously made correspondr't .ce with the respondent herein with a request to pay tht benefit of superannuation scheme. The appellant did nc t make the said payment. Therefore, appellant calnot cont.t nd that the suit is barred by limitation I2 KI-.J & VRKR.J ccca l8 2012

20. Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Tripura and Others Vs. Arabinda Chakraborty and Othersl, wherein on examination of the facts of the said case, where respondents filed the suit after more thal 13 years of the termination order, claimed limitation basing on the repeated representations, the Apex Court held that basing on the representations, employees cannot claim limitation. But in the present case, facts are slightly different.

21. It is apt to note that in Shakti Bog Food Industries Limited Vs. Central Bank of India and Others2, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the period of limitation can be reckoned basing on the correspondence. Even in the present case, respondent made the a-foresaid correspondence with the appellant-company seeking benefits under superannuation scheme.

22. As discussed Supra, respondent received Ex.Al1 i.e., Demand Draft under Ex.A12, i.e, Postal Cover on ' 1zo r+; o scc +oo r 1zo:o; tz scc zoo ./.' r3 KL,J & VRK&J ccca l8 2012

21.O1.2OO4, for an amount of Rs. 3,016/- tc wards part payment. He has hled the present suit on

9.12.2006. Therefore, the appellant company cannot conto: rd that the suit is barred by limitation. On consideration of the said aspects, in Paragraph No.24 of the impugned JtL, lgment, the Iearned Trial Court categorically held that the correSpondence exchanged between both the p,r rties up-to January 2OO4 can be considered and therefore, I he claim of the respondent-plaintiff was not barred by limit rtion. The said finding of the learned Trial Court is based on consideration of evidence, both oral and docur-t :ntar5r artd there is no error in it.

23. As discussed supra, appellant-company lenied the aforesaid benefit to the respondent on the z foresaid 2 grounds i.e., the said superannuation sr:l Leme was discontinued and that the suit is barred by limitzt ion. In the Iight of the aforesaid discussions, both the afor,: ;aid issues are answered against the appellant-company arLr i in favour of the respondent.

24. On consideration of the aforesaid evidenc,: both oral and documentary, learned IX Additional Chief Jr dge (FTC), l4 KL.J & VRKR.J ccca 18 2012 .- \=...-*1 -l City Civil Court at Hyderabad decreed the a-foresaid suit filed by the respondent in O.S.74 of 2OO7 uide impugned Judgment dated 26.09.2011, there is no error in it' It is a reasoned and well-founded Judgment' The appellant herein failed to make out any case to interfere with the said Judgment. Thus, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 25'. As discussed supra, uide order dated 1O'04'2O12' this Court granted interim stay of operation of the impugned judgment ald decree on condition that the appellant shall deposit 5O% of the decretal amount along with costs in full to the credit of the said suit within a period of six (6) weeks' In complialce with the said order, the appellant deposited the amount with a delay of twenty (20) days' Vide order dated 20.07.2012, this Court condoned the said delay and permitted the respondent to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant without furnishing any security'

26. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed directing the appellant-company to pay the balance amount along with interest to the respondent within one month from the date of receipt of coPY of this Judgment' l5 KL.J & VRKIi.J ccca I E 2012 Miscellaneous applications, if any pending shall stand closed. There sha]i b,-. no or,jer 'rs to costs. sd/- P JOWRI SHANKAR DI: )UTY REGISTRAR -.----=. \ To, 1 2 a

4. Kami //TRUE COPY// ]IECiON OFFICER The lX Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hy j ;rabad (with records, if any) One CC to Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, Advocate [OPUC One CC to Sri P Grrish Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies SA W srAri' 'uit ltb 15 t i ( : ) ) T Qesi :''g.g' HIGH COURT DATED:31 l'1012025 JUDGMENT+DECREE CCCA.No.18 of 2012 DISMISSING THE APPEAL ,), [9nr( 1/ >,' ')/ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY ctTY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 18 OF 2012 Between: M/s Bayer Bioscience Private Limited, [formerly known as M/s. Proagro Seed Company Limitedl 8-1-39, Tolichowki, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Managing Director ...Ap pella nUDefen d a nt AND Dr. Sharad Sharma, S/o late Dr. R.S Sharma, Age.48 years, Occ. Private Service R/o Plot No.206, Road No. 14, Jubrlee Hills, Hyderabad-5OO 033. ...RespondenUPlaintiff Appeal under Section 96 R/w order 4'1 Rule 1 of C.P.C. against the Judgment and decree dated 26-09-2011 passed in O.S.No.74 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the lX Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Crvil Court, Hyderabad. The appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of grounds frled in the Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the record in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. Ramakrishna, counsel representing Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and Srr P. Girish Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent. That this Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1. That Appeal be and hereby is dismissed directing the appellant-company to pay the balance amount along with interest to the respondent within one month from the date of receipt of copy of thrs'Judgment; and

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in thls appeal. d/- P. GOWRI SHANKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// r SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 ka nr The lX Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Crvil Court, Hyderabad Two CD Copies )&. HIGH COURT DATED:31 11012025 DECREE CCCA.No.18 of 2012 DISMISSING THE APPEAL 0/ I ')/ 'tb )