Plaintiff sued her employer for Rs.50,000 damages alleging abusive removal; employer counter-claimed Rs.75,000 for reputational harm. Trial court dismissed suit but allowed counter claim. High Court dismissed the suit appeal, allowed the counter claim appeal, set aside the counter claim as unproven by documents, and ordered refund to plaintiff.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:50346 RFA No. 1692 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1693 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1692 OF 2024 (RES-)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1693 OF 2024
IN RFA No. 1692/2024 BETWEEN:
SMT. B N ASHA D/O LATE NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.252, I BLOCK, 3RD CROSS, 1ST STAGE PEENYA, BENGALURU - 560 058.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S. VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
DR. G.P.BASAVARAJ
Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka
DEAD BY LRS
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. R. KIRAN, AND SRI. SATCHIDANANDA R. JOIS., ADVOCATES FOR C/R)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.04.2024 PASSED IN OS.NO.795/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DAMAGES.
IN RFA NO. 1693/2024
BETWEEN:
SMT. B.N.ASHA D/O LATE NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.252, I BLOCK, 3RD CROSS, 1ST STAGE, PEENYA, BENGALURU - 560 058.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S. VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
DR. G.P.BASAVARAJ DEAD BY LRS 1. SRI. R. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O DR. B. RAMASANJEEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, GENERAL SECRETARY, MYSORE HINDI PRACHARA PARISHAD, WORKING AT NO.58. WEST OF CHORD ROAD, SHIVANAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. R. KIRAN, AND SRI. SATCHIDANANDA R. JOIS, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.04.2024 PASSED IN OS.NO.795/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DAMAGES.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
R.F.A. No.1692/2024 is filed by the plaintiff under Section 96 of CPC as against the judgment and decree passed by the passed by the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. No.795/2017 dated 06.04.2024, whereby the trial Court has decreed the counter claim of the defendant. Whereas, R.F.A. No.1693/2024 is filed by the very same plaintiff under Section 96 of CPC for dismissing the suit of the plaintiff in the very same suit dated 06.04.2024.
defendant on the ground that she was working in the office of the respondent-defendant i.e. Hindi Prachara Parishad, for 17 years 10 months from 21.02.1999 to 09.12.2016, on monthly wages of ₹15,000/- and other benefits. There are more than 20 members working in the organization and the defendants have not complied with the various provisions of the labour legislation. The plaintiff had been removed from the post of office staff on 09.12.2016 without assigning any reasons and she has been removed from service intentionally. She has demanded the defendant to grant the lawful benefits, but they refused to grant. The defendant started harassing the plaintiff and she was pushed and dragged by the defendant. Ultimately, she was removed from service. Therefore, she lodged a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, State Women Commission, State Women Rights Commissioner. Later, she also filed a complaint to the Magistrate. The defendants used abusive words in front of co-workers, thereby she was subjected to mental torture as well as she suffered mentally and financially. The act of defendant caused the extreme damage to the plaintiff. She got issued legal notice to the defendant for paying damages.
that the plaintiff was habitual late comer to the office. She has made reckless allegations against the defendant organization,
which is voluntary social organization carrying out public service. Due to harassment of the plaintiff, the smooth functioning of the defendant organization suffered. It is contended that, every year, there is more than 25,000 students appear annually for the exams conducted State-wide by the defendant's organization & the certificates issued by the defendant-organization are utilized throughout the nation & internationally as an additional qualification for candidates. Therefore, the defendant made a counter claim of Rs.75,000/against the plaintiff.
following:-
Issues
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is
entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards damages from the defendants?
2. Whether the defendants prove that they are entitled for sum of Rs.75,000/- towards damages from the plaintiff?
3. What order or decree?
NC: 2024:KHC:50346 RFA No. 1692 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1693 of 2024
Additional Issues
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants have used abusive words against her, harassed her mentally and physically and terminated her from the service?
2. Whether the defendants prove that defendant organisation is a voluntary social organisation having good reputation the plaintiff being the office staff, damaged the reputation of defendant organisation by filing false complaints and false cases and thereby caused damage which effected the smooth running of the defendant organisation?
3. Whether the counter claim of the defendants can be allowed?
Affirmative and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, and allowed the counter claim of the defendant. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has filed these two appeals.
allowing both the appeals and decree the suit of the plaintiff by rejecting the counter claim of the defendant.
for payment of damage of Rs.50,000/– to be payable by the plaintiff to the defendant.
(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has tarnished the image of the plaintiff in the presence of the staff and other members of the office, and abused her in filthy language, and thereby, she has suffered the damage as claimed in the suit ?
(ii) Whether the defendant-organisation proves that because of the attitude of the plaintiff and filing of the complaint by the plaintiff as well as dragging the defendant to the Court, the smooth functioning of the defendant has been disturbed and thereby, financial loss has been caused to the defendant and hence, she is liable to pay damages in a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the defendant ?
(iii) Whether the judgment passed by the trial Court both in suit as well as counter claim calls for interference ?
As per the contention of defendant, the plaintiff said to be attending duty by coming to the office belatedly and the defendant said to be issued a memo for coming late to the office. The plaintiff said to be given explanation that because of construction of Metro at Bangalore, she was not able to come to the office in time. Subsequently, the dispute was aggravated where the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant before the police as per Ex.P.1 and also before the Commissioner of Police as per Ex.P.2. A complaint was also filed before the Women Commissioner, human Rights Commission as per Ex.P.3. Later, a complaint was filed before the Magistrate under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. as per Ex.P.4 and PCR has been registered. As per Ex.P.5, the sworn statement has been made by the plaintiff against the defendant. The learned Magistrate took cognizance against the respondentdefendant for the offences under Sections 354 and 506 of IPC and PCR has been converted into a criminal case against the defendant. Subsequently, the defendant approached this Court
NC: 2024:KHC:50346 RFA No. 1692 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1693 of 2024
in Criminal Petition No.854/2018 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. where the Coordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 23.06.2023, has quashed the criminal proceedings. After quashing of the complaint, the plaintiff has not approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in the aforesaid criminal case, which has attained the finality.
NC: 2024:KHC:50346 RFA No. 1692 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1693 of 2024
dispute in I.D. No.3/2017, though the issues were framed by the Industrial Tribunal in respect of the illegal termination of the plaintiff and voluntarily not appearing or the absence of the labour, both were negatived by the Industrial Tribunal. Such being the case, it cannot be said that the defendant has illegally terminated the plaintiff from the office from 09.12.2016. The Industrial Tribunal has already seized the matter and an appeal is pending consideration. Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant caused financial loss in order to claim the damages by the plaintiff.
and the defendant blamed each other. Whether the plaintiff was not allowed to come to the office or the plaintiff herself refused to go to office, is already discussed in the industrial dispute case. Therefore, the complaint filed by the plaintiff was quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and that was not challenged by the plaintiff before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, itself is not a ground to say that the plaintiff has damaged the image of the defendant and smooth functioning of the defendant, in order to pay damage to the defendant. Once the dispute arose between the parties, they will approach the court for justice. Merely, the plaintiff filed complaint and the aforesaid suit against the defendant and raised industrial dispute, is not a ground to show that the plaintiff is liable to pay damages. Therefore, without any document allowing the counter claim, is not correct. Therefore, the defendant has also failed to prove that the plaintiff has tarnished the image of the defendant and thereby, the plaintiff is liable to pay the damage. Hence, I answer point No.2 in the negative.
husband of the plaintiff abused the defendant's counsel and raised voice in the Court. Proceedings were drawn before the court to initiate contempt and later the plaintiff's counsel (husband) offered unconditional apology. Therefore, the question of allowing the counter claim is not correct. Therefore,
the order of allowing the counter claim requires to be set aside..
(iii) The counter claim filed by the defendant is set
aside.
(iv) The parties are bound by the decision in the
judgment passed by the Labour Court.
(v) The amount that was recovered by the defendant is
ordered to be refunded to the plaintiff/appellant.
Sd/(K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE
CS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50 CT:SK
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff proved the defendant abused and tarnished her image causing damage?
Whether the defendant proved the plaintiff's complaints disturbed its functioning warranting damages?
Whether the trial court's judgment on suit and counter claim required interference?
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Smt. B N Asha
Dr. G.P.Basavaraj (Dead by LRs) / Sri. R. Chandrashekar
K.Natarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
