CM No.6953-C of 2009 in/and RSA No.2335 of 2009 (O&M) -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.6953-C of 2009 in/and RSA No.2335 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: August 23, 2011. Jai Kumar Garg ... Appellant(s) v. Karan Cotsyn Ltd. & Anr. ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Ms. Maninder Preet Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.1. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): CM No.6953-C of 2009 In the present case, an application was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying that delay of 248 days in filing the appeal be condoned. Notice of the application was issued. Counsel for respondent No.1 had caused appearance. However, no service could be effected upon respondent No.2 as he has died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal representatives, till today, have not been impleaded. During the course of arguments, I have perused the judgment of the courts below and have called upon the Counsel for the appellant to argue the main appeal itself. Since vide a separate order, appeal has been dismissed, this CM No.6953-C of 2009 in/and RSA No.2335 of 2009 (O&M) -: 2 :- application calls for no orders. The same accordingly stands disposed of. RSA No.2335 of 2009 The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit praying that a decree for mandatory injunction be granted in his favour and defendants be directed to pay the balance salary of plaintiff amounting to Rs.42,000/- along with interest @ 25% per annum and it was further prayed that damages be awarded to the plaintiff for having suffered mental and physical loss for delay in payment of the salary. It was pleaded in the plaint that appellant- plaintiff was a qualified and well experienced Textile Engineer. On 7.11.2000, Paramjit Singh, who was employed with defendant No.1, Karan Cotsyn Ltd., Bhatinda, as Electrical Engineer, had offered the job to the plaintiff in the defendant firm as the defendant firm was in need of an experienced textile Engineer. It was stated that defendant firm was running in losses and the same could be turned profitable only with plaintiff's work and experience. On persuasion by Paramjit Singh, plaintiff contacted the defendants telephonically and as per the settlement, he joined duties as General Manager in the defendant Mill on 7.11.2000. It is stated that defendant-respondent No.2 had agreed to the payment of salary amounting to Rs.17,000/- per month and it was further agreed that in case of termination of services of the plaintiff, the defendants shall pay advance salary of one month. According to the plaintiff, he had served the defendant firm as General Manager upto 25.2.2001 and thereafter, his services were terminated. Plaintiff has claimed salary for the period of three months, i.e., two months for which he has worked that is January and February and one month in lieu of termination of his services. CM No.6953-C of 2009 in/and RSA No.2335 of 2009 (O&M) -: 3 :- Notice was issued to the defendants. They have not caused appearance and they were proceeded against ex-parte. The trial court held that the plaintiff had failed to produce and prove any documentary evidence from which it could be inferred that the plaintiff was employed as General Manager with the firm, defendant No.1. The court after appreciating the evidence came to the conclusion that self- serving statement of the plaintiff is not reliable and hence it deserves to be discarded. Aggrieved against the same, appellant-plaintiff had filed an appeal. The appeal was also dismissed. Hence, there is a concurrent finding of fact returned by both the courts below that the oral bald assertion made by the plaintiff lacks credence and, the same is to be ignored. Shri Sukhdeep Parmar, Counsel appearing for the plaintiff- appellant, has stated that once ex-parte evidence was there, the Court could not ignore the testimony of the plaintiff and the same should have relied upon. Counsel states that there was no challenge to the statement made by the plaintiff as the defendants were proceeded against ex-parte, therefore, unrebutted evidence should have been relied upon by both the courts below. I have perused the concurrent findings of fact returned by the courts below. It is admitted that no appointment letter or document was placed on record from which it could be inferred that the plaintiff was employed by the respondent-defendants. The courts below were well within their rights to ignore the oral statement made by the plaintiff, especially when no corroboration was coming forth to the same. Hence, no interference is warranted, especially when Counsel has failed to formulate CM No.6953-C of 2009 in/and RSA No.2335 of 2009 (O&M) -: 4 :- any question of law, much less a substantial one, during the course of arguments for consideration of this Court. The present appeal is, thus, dismissed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] August 23, 2011. Judge kadyan