They can file a suit for recovery of service bond amount with interest. Thereafter you will get summons from the court. You can leisurely fight it as it is civil case. You have several defenses which are described in the following similar case. Following the objection/written statement filed by the candidate
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT BENGALURU
O.S. No. 8740/2017
M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED …Plaintiff
SRI. KULDEEP KUMAR and ANOTHER …Defendants
WRITTEN STATEMENT BY DEFENDANT No.1/SRI. KULDEEP KUMAR UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908
The Defendant No.1/Sri. Kuldeep Kumar begs to state as under:
1. The Defendant No.1 submits that, contents of Para No.1 of plaint needs no reply as it contains address of advocate of the plaintiff, which is not in dispute.
2. The Defendant No.1 further submits that, contents of Para No.2 of plaint, also needs no reply which pertains to address of defendant shown cause title of plaint.
3. The Defendant No.1 further submits that, contents of Para No.3 of plaint, the contents of this para is also admitted to the extent that plaintiff company is a public sector under taking and that selection of first defendant was made on provisional basis to the post of Management Trainee. It is true that letter of appointment was received by this first defendant along with terms and conditions of appointment. It is necessary to state that the offer letter with terms and conditions that is appointment letter not disclosed anything about bond to be executed for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. Thus the plaintiff kept this defendant in dark about the execution of service bond with a liability of a big amount of Rs. 5 lakhs. Thus the contents of terms and conditions cannot be read along with plaint since the said preliminary letters sent by plaintiff were misleading.
4. The Defendant No.1 further submits that, contents of Para No.4 of plaint, though this defendant communicated about his acceptance to the provisional letter of appointment, it was so made without knowing the execution of service bond for Rs. 5 lakhs. Thus it is a misleading offer which gives a cause of action for this defendant to quit the job at any time.
5. The Defendant No.1 further submits that, contents of Para No.5 of plaint, it is false to see that second defendant voluntarily offered himself as guarantor/surety for this defendant. It is humbly submits that without disclosing the contents of Bond/Service Agreement the signatures of this defendant and signature of second defendant were taken. In fact, none of the contents of Bond/Service Agreement disclosed to either to this defendant or to second defendant. Thus a document which came into existence without disclosing contents therein cannot bind either this defendant or second defendant. The entire story of plaintiff is false and frivolous. It is humbly submitted that they took signatures from these defendents only. No authority from HAL side signed in the bond paper at the time of our joining. Also they didn’t agreed the surety of Bond to be parents of this defendant citing from whom they will recover Bond amount in case of bankruptcy of our parents.. The plaintiff’s public sector under taking enriching itself by collecting amounts on the so called Bonds/Services Agreements by incorporating exuberant amounts. Thus it cheated several candidates and made them to serve the company under a threat of recovering Bond amount. The future of the candidate cannot be curtailed and it is nothing but a Bond of Slavery. Thus the said Bond came into existence without the knowledge of defendants and their signatures were taken by fraud without disclosing the contents therein saying that the new entrants have to sign some papers. The plaintiff himself not knowing as to whether such document is called as Bond or Service Agreement. It is not registered at any of the Sub-Registrar office thus it has no legal entity to rely upon to claim the amount mentioned in the said Bond/Service Agreement. The plaintiff even claiming interest on the Bond/Service Agreement amount, which is not allowable and it is illegal claim. The plaintiff has not paid required stamp duty as per Karnataka Stamp Act and also not registered as per the provisions of Indian Registration Act, thus the suit is not maintainable. Alternatively the said document may kindly be impounded. Otherwise the plaintiff may be asked to pay 10 times of the penalty on the actual stamp duty required to be paid on such Bond/Service Agreement. The following preliminary issues may be framed in the above given circumstances, as follows:
a) Whether suit is maintainable in the present form.
b) Whether plaintiff is liable to pay 10 times of required stamp duty on the Suit Document under which plaintiff claiming Rs. 5 lakhs with interest.
6. The Defendant No.1 further submits that, contents of Para No.6 of plaint, the pleadings are in insufficient as such the present suit is not maintainable in the present form. In the earlier paras the plaintiff has not pleaded under what circumstances the alleged Bond/Service Agreement was came into existence. The plaintiff has not pleaded under which provisions of which enactment the plaintiff is entitled to receive such bonds from its employees. Further the plaintiff failed to plead anything as to why the alleged Bond/Service Agreement was not registered. Further the plaintiff failed to plead as to under what provisions of law it was given exemption to pay the prescribed Stamp Duty as provided under Karnataka Stamp Act. The pleadings of the plaintiff are insufficient as such the plaint to be thrown out by framing above preliminary issues and holding answers to the above preliminary issues in favour of this defendant. Further it is humbly submitted that it is pleaded as to who was the scribe of the said Bond/Service Agreement and the names and addresses of the witnesses in whose presence the said Bond/Service Agreement was executed by this defendants. Simply because the plaintiff is a big corporate entity it cannot brush away all the laws to the wind. It cannot deem that the provisions of the Registration Act and Karnataka Stamp Act are not applicable to it. It is the high handedness of plaintiff getting such illegal documents and claiming unreasonable and illegal amounts in the guise of amounts mentioned in the alleged Bond/Service Agreement. Viewing from any angle there is no base to file this suit since no pleading is made to file a suit of this nature. Further to the ire of this defendant, the plaintiff claiming interest at the rate of 18% on such alleged Bond amount. Admittedly it is not a Bond (alleged) executed in favour of any money lender. The plaintiff is not entitled for any interest on the said amount. At the most the plaintiff is entitled to file a suit for specific performance and alternative relief of damages. It is common sense that if an employee caused any loss by way of discontinue work without any reasonable cause, then the plaintiff get a cause of action only for a relief of specific performance seeking a direction against the employee to resume the work/duty, alternatively a claim for damages. The plaintiff claimed entire Bond amount with interest deeming that this defendant caused such huge loss. No sufficient pleadings were made and no supporting documents were placed before this Court to establish there was any loss to the plaintiff company. The plaintiff defendant already made it clearly that the atmosphere at the plaintiff’s company premises is not suitable and nobody with self respect can work there. Thus many of the employees every day quitting the job at the plaintiffs company. It is high time to state that the plaintiff company made it a habit of enriching by filing this type of suits and taking advantage of being a Public Sector Undertaking getting decrees from Hon’ble Courts. In nut shell it can be said that the alleged Bond/Service Agreement is nothing but a slavery Bond curtailing the rights created under the Constitution of India. Under the various Articles of Constitution of India several fundamental rights were preserved in favour of citizens. This is one of the kinds of violation of such rights available to this defendant. Since this defendant come from North India and when he went to his native place unable to bear the physical and mental torture given by plaintiff’s entity, he fell ill and he sent several SMS messages and called upon the concerned officers and intimated about his illness. The plaintiff without any reason and cause and without initiating any departmental enquiry all of a sudden terminated the services of this defendant. Though the plaintiff stated that it will initiate disciplinary action it never initiated any such disciplinary action against this defendant. This defendant was under the impression that he may receive notice of disciplinary authority initiating departmental enquiry but to his service he received termination letter which is illegal authority and arbitrary. It is nothing but high handedness in not invoking any of the provisions of service rules. Thus this defendant is not liable to pay any amount much less suit claim. With these contentions this defendant denies all the contentions made in this para.
7. The Defendant No.1 further submits that, contents of Para No.7 of plaint, at the outset the contents of this para are denied as false.
8. The Defendant No.1 further submits that, contents of Para No.8 of plaint, the entire contents of this para is nothing but bundle of violations of Service rules and regulations. Further the plaintiff’s entity never invoked principals of natural justice which are primarily required in the Service Law. No paper publication was issued calling upon this defendant to the duty. No departmental enquiry was initiated. All service termination must base upon the findings arrived by the enquiry officer. Under the principals of natural justice whenever an employee is out of reach of employer it is the primary duty of employer to issue public notification in local newspapers and there upon to appoint an enquiry officer framing charges against the employee. No such charges were framed and no charge sheet was ever sent to this defendant. No findings of enquiry officer received. Thus the unilateral termination of this defendant without basing upon report of the enquiry officer is illegal and arbitrary. The plaintiff being a big public undertaking should have maintained discipline in the procedure in respect of termination of service of this respondent. It should have a model for other small organizations. Thus the entire procedure stated in para No.8 of plaint is irregular and illegal needs to be set aside and consequently suit as to be dismissed with costs.
9. The Defendant No.1 further submits that, contents of Para No.9 of plaint, the contents of this para are all false and baseless. No basis is pleaded has as to how the plaintiff arrived at a figure of Rs. 5 lakhs when the suit document is itself invalid. Sir the computed my bond liability to be Rs 8,80,762/- Thus no right is created in favour of plaintiff to claim any amount under the said alleged Bond.
10. The Defendant No.1 further submits that, contents of Para No.10 of plaint, the correspondence said to have been taken place between this defendant and plaintiff is illegal and cannot be relied legally upon, since the existence of suit document/Bond is doubtful under suspicious circumstances for want of legality of creation of such Bond etc., With these contentions this defendant denies entire contents of this para as illegally and plaintiff cannot take any benefit on the admissions made by this defendant since the said alleged Bond itself illegal, arbitrary and violation of statutory rules and regulations.
11. The Defendant No.1 further submits that, contents of Para No.11 of plaint, the correspondence stated in this para is nothing but threatening letters issued to this defendant and also to second defendant. In the given background of this case, the plaintiff ought not to have such repeated letters more or less to be treated as threatening letters causing mental agony to this defendant. This defendant reserves his right to claim damages in respect of mental agony created by the plaintiff both at work place and through above said illegal correspondence. With these contentions this defendant humbly submits that entire pleadings in this para are illegally and contrary to law.
12. The Defendant No.1 further submits that, contents of Para No.12 of plaint, again plaintiff made a big mistake by issuing legal notice to this defendant. Without repeating the earlier pleadings, this defendant humbly submits that the so called legal notice since based upon illegal document and illegal claim as such this defendant not liable to answer the same through any legal expert however reply suitably by this defendant. The copy of reply dated 24.04.2017 to the above said legal notice is herewith produced as DOCUMENT No.D1. The same may be read as part and parcel and this written statement. The other contents of this para are all imaginary and not enforceable before any Court of Law as such denied as false.
13. The Defendant No.1 further submits that, contents of Para No.13 of plaint, as stated above since the legal notice sent by plaintiff’s entity require no attention by any legal expert as such this defendant himself replied the same.
14. The Defendant No.1 further submits that, contents of Para No.14 of plaint, at the cost of repetition the plaintiff again put his case in summary in this para as such this defendant categorically denies all the contents of this para. Further this defendant specifically submits that at no point of time he admitted the Bond liability. Even otherwise it is the wisdom of the law that is even if a person admitted his liability in respect of an amount which is mentioned in illegal and unenforceable document, such admission cannot be considered and a decree cannot be passed on such illegal documents. Where after the plaintiff claiming 18% interest and where after an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was mentioned in the alleged Bond. Absolutely there is no piece of paper that is circular, notification, service rule or any section of any enactment to put a figure of Rs. 5 lakhs amount in the alleged Bond and similarly no such document supporting which empowers plaintiff to create alleged Bond/Service Agreement from his employee. With these contentions the entire pleadings made in this para for all false and frivolous and unenforceable.
15. The Defendant No.1 further submits that, contents of Para No.15 of plaint, the causes of action stated in this para are all imaginary and based upon illegal documents and illegal correspondence. When there is no basis and authority to create suit document then the present suit is not maintainable and no cause of action can be created in favour of plaintiff. This defendant reserves his right to initiate relevant proceedings for filing this false suit basing upon illegal and unenforceable documents. With these contentions this defendant prays for dismiss the suit since it has no cause of action.
16. The Defendant No.1 further submits that, contents of Para No.16 of plaint, the suit claim is imaginary as such unnecessarily the plaintiff’s entity paid huge amount of Court fee as such this defendant is not liable to pay either suit claim or Court fee or costs of this suit.
17. The Defendant No.1 further submits that, his additional pleadings which are true facts and same may be considered and suit may be dismissed.
ADDITIONAL PLEADINGS BY DEFENDANT No.1
i) This defendant was offered Provisional Offer of Appointment vide Letter No. HAL/HR/25(42)/2013/01 dated 10th Dec 2013.
ii) This defendant always dreamed from college days itself to pursue his career in Aerospace Industry. His projects, Seminars, Paper Presentations, Optional Subjects all were related to Aerospace Industry. So when this defendant got an offer from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, he was elated. He joined Hindustan Aeronautics Limited/plaintiff with fervent enthusiasm and passion, to work for my country in the field of Aircraft manufacturing and the cutting edge technology associated with it.
iii) This defendant further submits that, his expectations were dispelled due to widespread negativity among the employees and officials of the defendant company with respect to future prospects in the company and utter dissatisfaction towards the meager salary in a metropolitan city like Bangalore.
iv) This defendant further submits that, everyone was encouraging to look for other options, even people with distinguished positions in HAL Management Academy as well. Soon this defendant wanted to look for alternative options and this defendant wanted to appear for his pending interview of ISRO in which he had secured 26th rank in written Exam. But the officials at HAL Management Academy did not permitted this defendant to appear for his ISRO interview scheduled on 19th Jan 2014 at New Delhi. This defendant was denied No Objection Certificate and leave to attend the interview citing Bond Agreement Terms and Conditions.
v) This defendant further submits that, even when this defendant had approached officers like Chief Manager, DGM (HR), Additional General Manager and General Manager of RWR&DC to allow him to change his Department from Tooling to Aerodynamics or to Design, his request was arbitrarily rejected with a threat to be sent to home directly. This defendant tried for almost 5-6 months taking appointments and requesting a change in department but no one listened.
vi) This defendant further submits that, the Authorities at the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited/plaintiff preyed upon his fears of losing his job and hence threatened him from time to time.
vii) This defendant further submits that, even when this defendant approached HAL Management Academy authorities to allow him to appear for various competitive written examinations, he was denied permission and they threatened him of dire consequences for appearing in any Examinations again citing the terms and conditions of my Contractual Obligations to serve the company for a minimum period of 5 years after successful completion of Training Period.
viii) This defendant further submits that, this defendant was threatened by HR management at HAL Management Academy by saying that even if he completes his 4 years of service and then leave this organization for better opportunities, they would recover the full bond amount of Rs 5 lakhs. They were not transparent in explaining terms and conditions of service in a Public Sector Enterprises according to the DOPT orders and rights to appear in other examinations for better opportunities. They always kept the employees in darkness saying they have different set of rules. This defendant had faced mental agony on account of humiliation and torture inflicted because of the indifferent attitude and high hindrance from HR management of HAL Management Academy.
ix) This defendant further submits that, this made this defendant frustrated and depressed and disappointed about his decision in joining the esteemed organization Hindustan Aeronautics Limited which very much have been marred and degraded by some of its officials sitting at distinguished positions with their unruly and unwarranted behavior. Their indifference attitude towards new trainees w.r.t. to their problems leaves trainees frustrated and uninterested towards the company.
x) This defendant further submits that, moreover, when above mentioned circumstances led this defendant to go on leave to cope up with his depression and frustration, no disciplinary action was initiated against him but all of a sudden a termination letter was sent to teach him a lesson. This defendant submits that his training period was further extended for a period of 7 months despite his sincere efforts and hard work to complete his training within the stipulated time which rendered him further depressed with no scope of his future career growth and a dark future in HAL. This defendant was very keen in grasping knowledge related to Aircraft Industry and had given his sincere efforts in performing best in various examinations during the training program, teaming to make quadcopter for the projects and the on job training program. But despite his sincere efforts he was given punishment just for absenteeism.
xi) This defendant further submits that, he became a subject of joke among his co-workers because of the punishment given to him by extending his training duration which further led to degradation of his moral strength.
xii) This defendant further submits that, depression and mental agony from above cited circumstances and deterioration of health condition of himself and his mother forced him to request for leave for few days from Higher Authority which was rejected without considering his situation and citing his extended training schedule.
18. This defendant further submits that, on reading of the alleged Bond/Service Agreement it only indicates that cause of action if any accrues in favour of plaintiff is only after elapse of 5 years of period. In the above given bad atmosphere created by the plaintiff’s company, this defendant mentally depressed and in that situation also leave was not granted. Without having no alternative he abruptly went to his native place and narrated his sorrowful state of job situation, having heard the same his mother’s health deteriorated. Thus in the given situation which was created plaintiff entity himself and his mother undergoing hospitalized treatment, for which directly and indirectly the acts of plaintiff’s entity and its officers conduct relates to. This defendant reserves his right to sue the plaintiff company and its officers at the appropriate time.
19. This defendant further submits that, the plaintiff public sector establishment should have followed the following guidelines issued by Government of India, which are reproduced below:
“(DPE O.M. No. 24(11) /96 (GL-010) GM dated 2nd November, 1998)
4. Enforcement/transfer of bond in respect of employees of Public Enterprises who leave the service of one Undertaking to join another Undertaking/Government.
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department’s OMs No. BPE/GL-017/77/MAN/2(11)/75-BPE(GM I) dated 13.06.1977 and 23.05.1981 and No. 17/20/84-GM dated 05.02.1985 on the subject mentioned above, which were deleted vide this Department’s O.M. No. 20(5)/95-DPE(GM) dated 10th December, 1997. After deletion of these guidelines, Department of Public Enterprises received references from various quarters for revival of these guidelines to enable them to regularize enforcement/transfer of bond in the case of public sector employees joining services in Central Govt./State Govt./Autonomous Bodies. The position has been reviewed and after careful consideration, it has been decided to revive this Department’s OMs dated 13.06.1977, 23.05.1981 and 05.02.1985 with the following modifications:
(a) The bond executed by employees of the Public Enterprises, who have received scientific/technical training at the cost of Public Enterprises and have applied through proper channel during the currency of the bond join Central Govt./State Govt. services or take up employment under quasi-government organizations or any other public enterprises either on the basis of competition examinations/tests/interviews organized by those organizations or the Union Public Service Commission should not be enforced subject to the condition that a fresh bond is taken to ensure that the employee serves the new employer for the balance of the original bond period”.
20. This defendant further submits that, further the “Hand Book for Personnel Officers” published by Government of India. Institute of Secretariat Training & Management (Department of Personnel & Training) Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, New Delhi in its chapter forty has elaborated the procedure for execution of Bond and their relevant rules for transfer of Bond in case the employee got job in any other Central Government, State Government or Public Sector Undertaking. The relevant paras are reproduced below:
“Chapter – 40
ENFORCEMENT OF BOND
(IN RESPECT OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISES EMPLOYESS, WHO LEAVE SERVICE TO SECURE EMPLOYMENT ELSEWHERE)
40.1 Government servants who have received scientific and technical training at Government expense are often required to execute a bond, undertaking to repay the money in the event of their failure to serve the Government for a specified number of years after completion of their training.
40.2.1 The bond should be enforced against those Government servants only, who leave Government service in order to secure private employment. The terms of the bond may not be enforced in this case of Government servants, who leave Government service to, secure employment, under a State Government, a public sector undertaking, owner wholly or partly by the central Government or by a State Government, or a quasi Government organization. In such cases, a fresh bond is to be taken from such Government servants to ensure that they served the new employer for the remaining period of the bond.
40.2.2 The terms of bond executed by an employee of a Public Enterprise, who has received scientific/technical training at the cost of the Enterprise, should not be enforced in case he joins the Central Government a State Government, a quasi Government organization or another Public Enterprises, subject to the condition that a fresh bond is taken to ensure that the employee serves the new employer for the balance of the original bond period.
BPE O.M. No. BPE/GL -017/77/MAN/2(11)/75-BPE (GM-I), dated 13.06.1977”.
21. This defendant further submits that, thus it is very clear that Bond can be transferred if it is held valid and legally executed, to the present employer of this defendant thus it will be continued. This defendant is working in the office of Ordnance Factories which also comes under Ministry of Defence just as HAL comes under ministry of Defence and his present designataion and official address is as follows: Kuldeep Kumar, IOFS, Assistant Works Manager (P), National Academy of Defence Production
OFAJ, Ambajhari, Nagpur 440021, Maharastra State, India
if such direction is given by this Hon’ble Court. No loss or harm would be caused to the plaintiff if such Bond transfer is made in the prevailing rules of services, with these contentions this defendant humbly prays as follows:
WHEREFORE, it is humbly prayed to dismiss the suit with direction to the plaintiff to transfer the Bond/Service Agreement that is suit document to the present employer of this defendant.
Defendant No.1/Kuldeep Kumar