When employer can not recover damages for breach of employment bond?
A perusal of the letter of appointment which is subsequent in point of time, issued on 12th March,2007 however, indicates that if after the expiry of six months, the petitioner was not issued any letter of confirmation, the petitioner would be continued on probation.
Clause 8 of the said letter of appointment inter-alia indicates that both the parties were entitled to terminate the services by giving one month notice to another. Respondent No.1 could terminate the services of the petitioner on payment of one month consolidated salary and other admissible allowances in lieu of notice and vice versa the petitioner could resign from the service subject to giving one months notice in writing of his intention to do so. If the petitioner wanted to leave the service without notice, the petitioner had agreed to pay to the company the sum equivalent to one month consolidated salary and other admissible allowances to respondent no.1 or respondent no.1 was permitted to sue the petitioner for damages .
39. A conjoint reading of the appointment letter and the bond agreement indicates that there is inconsistency in the provision under the bond agreement and the appointment letter in respect of the period of service. Be that as it may, even if the bond agreement is allowed to be enforced, the terms and conditions of such bond are required to be satisfied before invocation of the said bond.
40. A perusal of the bond agreement clearly indicates that respondent no.1 had agreed to provide the specialized training to the petitioner at considerable costs and expenditure of the company. A perusal of the record and more particularly the examination in chief filed by the witness examined by respondent no.1, clearly indicates that there was no provision made by respondent no.1 for specialized training for the petitioner. The petitioner was kept under the supervision of some of the superiors. According to respondent no.1, even the same would amount to specialized training. I am not inclined to accept this submission on behalf of respondent no.1.
41. A perusal of the cross-examination of the witness examined by respondent no.1 indicates that respondent no.1 when called upon to produce the time sheets to show that the seniors were sitting with the petitioner and giving support for understanding with the product, respondent no.1 did not produce such time sheets. In my view, respondent no.1 has failed to prove that any specialized training was given to the petitioner as prescribed under the said bond agreement.
42. Insofar as the compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs claimed by respondent no.1 from the petitioner under the said bond agreement is concerned, in my view since respondent no.1 did not prove the compliance of the terms and conditions for invocation of the bond agreement, respondent no.1 could not have invoked the said bond.
43. Insofar as the submission of Mr.Gupte, the learned counsel for respondent no.1 that the claim made by respondent no.1 under the said bond agreement was in the nature of liquidated damages and thus respondent no.1 though had referred to some expenditure incurred in providing training to the petitioner, respondent no.1 was not required to prove any such loss / damages alleged to have been suffered by respondent no.1 is concerned, in my view, there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel. In my view, if the loss is capable of calculation and being proved, it cannot be construed as liquidated damages.
Bombay High Court
Milind P. Mane vs Godrej Infotech Ltd. And 2 Ors on 16 January, 2015
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION PETITION NO.466 OF 2012
Citation;2016(2)ALLMR317
https://www.lawweb.in/2016/05/when-employer-can-not-recover-damages.html
