TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Service of Appellant. The Respondent had raised issue with the Appellant with regard to the services, he was rendering and the dispute was pre-existing and thus, we find that the Adjudicating Authority rightly rejected the three Applications filed by the Appellant under Section 9 of I B Code. Appeal dismissed. - Company Appeals (AT) (Ins) Nos.155, 157 and 158 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 6-8-2019 - Mr. S.J. Mukhopadhaya Chairperson, Mr. A.I.S. Cheema, Member (Judicial) and Kanthi Narahari Member (Technical) For Appellant: Shri Jagan Pampapathy, Appellant in person For Respondent: Shri L.K. Bhushan and Ms. Aditi Awasthy, Advocates JUDGEMENT 1. The Appellant was employed wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owance which was due to the Applicant as per the terms of his employment contract for the period 06.10.2016 to 28.02.2017, and the second component is of ₹ 81,615/- which it is claimed, is amount deducted ostensibly as car allowance between March, 2017 to May, 2017 despite closure of car lease on 01.03.2017. The Appellant had issued Section 8 Notice (Page 54 of the Appeal i.e. - Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.155 of 2019) dated 30th January, 2018 in this regard to the Respondent, but operational debt was not cleared, it is claimed. B. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.157 of 2019 relates to the grievance made by the Appellant that he has not been paid a part of his salary and contractual dues for the months of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the Appointment Letter, etc., were raised. C. In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.158 of 2019, the grievance of the Appellant relates to the Respondent defaulting in payment of an amount of ₹ 1,37,115/- in respect of part of salary for April, May and June, 2017. The Appellant claimed that the Respondent deducted TDS ₹ 71,189/- which showed that ₹ 3,19,146/- was due to the Appellant but Respondent deposited only ₹ 1,34,929/- and thus there were dues of ₹ 1,37,115/-. The Appellant had sent Section 8 Notice dated 16.01.2018 (Page 115 of the Paper Book of the Appeal No.158/2019) but in spite of the Notice, the operational dues were not paid. 4. The Respondent Company in all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ebruary, 2017 when the car lease was active @ 27,205 per month. According to the Respondent, no amounts were deducted towards car EMI for March to May, 2017. According to the Respondent, the Appellant had raised dispute before the Ombudsman of Respondent and the said dispute had already been closed. Legal Notice had been issued to the Appellant on 26.09.2017 to return laptop and pay damages and Petition had been filed under Section 43 of Information Technology Act seeking compensation of ₹ 50 Lakhs from the Appellant. The Respondent claimed that there was already existence of dispute before the Section 8 Notice dated 30.01.2018 (in CA 155/2019). Respondent relies on the Registered Post AD Notice dated 18th April, 2017 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Appellant. In this matter also, the Respondent relied on the Notice issued to the Appellants on 18th April, 2017 and Notice dated 25th April, 2017 (Page 89 of Appeal No.157/2019) with regard to the charges levelled against him and when he was asked to appear before the Enquiry Officer. 7. With regard to the claim made by the Appellant for non-payment of salary from April to June, 2017 although TDS was deducted, the Respondent (in CA 158/2019) relied on the defence taken before the Adjudicating Authority and the Notice dated 25th April, 2017 (Page 132 of the concerned Appeal) which was sent by e-mail and mentioned that in pursuance to e-mail to the Appellant on 5th April, 2017 and 10th April, 2017 and letter dated 18th Apr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the Enquiry Officer Mr. Pritam Diwakar Shetty on 3rd May, 2017. It is apparent that disputes had arisen, before the Appellant could serve Notices on the Respondent. The defence of Respondent is based on documents prior in time. It is not a case of admitted or apparent debt and the Adjudicating Authority is not expected to enter into the disputed questions of facts. In the present matter, the documents being relied on by Respondent show prior existing disputes with regard to the Service of Appellant. The Respondent had raised issue with the Appellant with regard to the services, he was rendering and the dispute was pre-existing and thus, we find that the Adjudicating Authority rightly rejected the three Applications filed by the Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
