Mumbai: Dr Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma, a geologist from Hyderabad, finally obtained an order from the city civil court after 13 years of filing a suit to get his dues from Ispat Industries Limited. He had claimed that his dues were pending since 2009. The court has asked the company to clear his dues with 9% interest. Vishwakarma, a geologist, had approached the city civil court on March 9, 2012, against Ispat Industries Limited and Global Steel Holdings Limited.
Vishwakarma said that he was appointed by Ispat Industries in February 2004 as an advisor. Later, it is claimed that he was sent to Colombia to work in Minandes SA, Colombia. It is claimed that while carrying out work in Nigeria from September 10, 2004 to April 15, 2008 he was not paid nine months’ salary of $37,242 and local dues and other miscellaneous claims of $465. He claimed that the pending dues for service in Colombia and in India were not made by the defendants despite several emails.
The city civil court has hence held that, “plaintiff is entitled for salary due of April, 2009 of Rs2,87,500 salary due up to May 27 05, 2009 of Rs2,50,400 and Rs9,85,300 as waiting period salary from May 28, 2009 to November 20, 2009.” The court however said he is entitled for an amount of Rs12,98,200 and not Rs22,60,700 as claimed by him. Ispat Industries claimed that from January, 2007 the plaintiff was not employed with defendant No.1 (Ispat Industries) and was employed with defendant No.2 (Global Steel Holdings).
The plaintiff’s own pleading shows that he was employed by Minandes SA, the defendant claimed, contending that the suit was not maintainable. The plaintiff contends that Minandes SA, Colombia is an overseas company in which defendants are holding 27.30% shares. The court, after referring to the records produced by Vishwakarma, observed that, “it is proved that plaintiff was an employee of defendant No.1 company who was appointed for Minandes SA, Colombia on a salary of $6800 per month.”
While rejecting the claim of Ispat Industries, the court said, “defendants and Minandes SA are inter-related and it was the authorized signatory of defendant No.1 who appointed plaintiff to serve in Minandes SA at Colombia. No any plausible explanation has come from the side of defendants regarding the appointment letter signed by authorized signatory of defendant No.1.
If there was no any co-relation between de fen - dant No.1 and Minandes SA, then there was no any reason for authorised signatory of de - fendant No.1 to sign the ap - pointment letter and to reply to the emails. Therefore, as regards the defence of defendant No.1 that plaintiff was not their employee is not proved by them. On the contrary, the umpteen documents and the exchange of emails prove otherwise.”
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
