The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by former employee Anju Dhawan, who sought recovery of more than ₹9 lakh from her former employer, Aithent Technologies Pvt. Ltd., claiming unpaid deferred salary, bonus, and other employment-related dues.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the employee failed to prove that the salary reduction implemented by the company in 2002-03 was merely a temporary deferment that created a legally enforceable obligation to repay the amount later.
Background of the Case
Anju Dhawan had worked with Aithent Technologies from October 1993 until July 2004. According to her, the company faced financial difficulties in 2002 and asked certain employees to accept a temporary reduction in salary. She argued that the reduced portion was only deferred and was promised to be repaid in April 2003 along with a bonus equivalent to one month’s salary.
The former employee claimed that she was entitled to ₹2.43 lakh as deferred salary and ₹67,500 as compensation bonus. She also sought recovery of gratuity, leave encashment, reimbursements and interest, taking the total claim to ₹9.09 lakh.
The trial court had dismissed her recovery suit in April 2024, following which she approached the High Court.
Court Examines Salary Reduction Arrangement
Before the High Court, the employee relied on internal company communications that referred to “deferred salary” and argued that these documents showed the company’s commitment to repay the reduced amount.
The company, however, maintained that the measure was a restructuring of salaries due to financial constraints and not a deferment. It argued that no agreement existed requiring repayment of the reduced salary at a later date.
Court’s Observations
Justice Krishna noted that the most important document was a letter dated April 1, 2002, which had been signed and accepted by the employee.
The Court observed that the document described the arrangement as a salary “re-structure” and an “interim measure” but did not contain any promise that the reduced salary would be repaid in future.
“The only document communicated to and signed by the appellant on the subject of salary reduction characterises the arrangement as a ‘re-structure’,” the Court observed.
The Court further noted that there was no written agreement, board resolution, or other contemporaneous document establishing a commitment to repay the reduced amount or to pay the claimed bonus.
It also found significance in the fact that the employee continued working for more than a year after the alleged repayment date and did not raise any formal claim regarding the supposed deferred salary during that period.
The Court noted that the company had already paid admitted terminal dues, including gratuity and leave encashment, during the pendency of the suit.
It rejected the employee’s claim for interest on those amounts, observing that the company had earlier offered payment, which she declined to accept. The Court also found no evidence supporting her claim of any remaining unpaid balance.
Finding no error in the trial court’s conclusions, the Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of the recovery suit.
Holding that the employee had failed to establish any legally enforceable right to recover the alleged deferred salary, bonus, interest, or additional dues, the Court dismissed the appeal and all pending applications.
