Summary
An employer sought reimbursement of overseas travel expenses after a software developer resigned before completing the service period stipulated for return from deputation. The Court held that the employer had not proved the essential contractual premise that the business visit was an overseas deputation. Deputation involves a consensual arrangement between lending employer, borrowing employer and employee; a transient business visit did not satisfy that description without cogent evidence. The recovery suit was dismissed and the employee awarded Rs1 lakh litigation costs.
Issues
- Whether the employer proved overseas deputation so as to trigger its contractual right to recover expenses following resignation.
Held
- The employer, as plaintiff, bore the initial burden of proving its own claim, including that the employee had been sent overseas on deputation. Representation of the employee through her spouse as attorney did not relieve the plaintiff of that burden. No posting or deputation letter or other material evidence established the contractual prerequisite. (¶ 9-11)
- Deputation involves a consensual tripartite arrangement between the lending employer, borrowing employer and employee, with associated rights and obligations. A transient business visit without a written agreement detailing deputation terms did not qualify unless cogent evidence established an actual overseas secondment. The lower courts had overlooked this and the claim failed on the plain contract. (¶ 10-11)
- The recovery suit following workplace grievances and resignation subjected the employee to needless harassment. In addition to dismissal of the suit, the Court awarded Rs1 lakh costs, payable into its Registry within one month for disbursement to her. (¶ 12-13)
Result
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside and employer’s recovery suit dismissed; employee awarded Rs1 lakh litigation costs, to be deposited within one month.