Before the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital

First Appeal No. 76 of 2018

Shri Sanjay Sharma S/o Shri Neeraj Sharma R/o Rajpur Road, Dehradun

……………….Appellant

Versus

The Shoe Shop Pvt ltd Rajpur Rpad Dehradun

………………Respondent

Appeal U/s 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

LIMITATION

Impugned Judgment passed on 21.09.2018

 Certified Copy applied on 21.09.2018

Certified copy received on 21.09.2018

Appeal filed on 07.10.2018

Hence this appeal is being filed within period of limitation.

Sir,

The above named appellant is filing this present appeal aggrieved by the Judgment
& Order dated 21.09.2018, passed by the District & Sessions Court, Dehradun, in
Suit No. 87 of 2017, Sanjay Sharma v. The Shoe Shop Pvt. Ltd., wherein the
Hon’ble District Court ruled that the Appellant had no right to claim the post of
Head Salesman at the Respondent’s Rajpur Road Branch.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

1. That the appellant is a resident of Rajpur Road, Dehradun and has to support his
wife, father and mother, and hails from a remote area.
2. That the appellant had applied for a job at the Respondent’s Rajpur Road Branch
for the post of head salesman on 11.07.2017.

3. That on 15.12.2017 the appellant received a mail from The Shoe Shop’s Rajpur
Road branch, stating that he was approved for the post of Head Salesman and had
to report at the Respondent’s Rajpur Road branch on 17.12.2017.

4. That the appellant, for reason of a 14-hour train delay, could only reach the Rajpur
Road Branch on 18.12.2017.

5. That during the train delay, he had called up the Respondent’s Rajpur Road branch
and notified a man named Varun that he would not be able to reach the branch on
time, hearing which Varun told him not to worry, and that the delay would not
deprive him of his job.

6. That on reaching the Respondent’s Rajpur Road branch on 18.12.2017, the

appellant was told that he had never qualified for the job, and that a man named
Darshan Jain was now the Head Salesman of the branch.

7. That when the appellant showed the Respondent the mail he had received, the
superiors at the branch dismissed his argument, claiming that the mail was just an
error. When the appellant mentioned Varun, they said that a man with that name
had never worked with that Branch.
8. That all of the appellant’s attempts to reason with the Respondents failed,
following which he filed a suit at the District and Sessions Court, Dehradun on
31.12.2017, to claim his rightful job at the Respondent’s Rajpur Road job.

9. That by virtue of order vide 21.08.2018, the Hon’ble Court ruled that the
appellant’s contentions were invalid on the grounds that no Varun was found in
any of the Respondent’s employee records.

10. That the impugned Judgment has been passed by the District and Sessions Court,
Dehradun completely ignoring the mandatory provisions of the Act and ignoring
the material on record, which are set out below:-

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

1- Because the Hon’ble District Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the letter
was addressed to Mr. Sanjay Sharma, the appellant, and therefore this could not be
a mere minor error.
2- Because the Hon’ble District Court has failed to look into the contents in the
appellant’s application letter, which lays down all the qualifications that the
appellant had met, namely above 50 per cent in his 10th and 12th boards marksheet,
and a score of above 60 per cent in his bachelor’s degree scoresheet.
3- Because even though no evidence of a man named Varun working at the branch in
question has surfaced, the Hon’ble Court has not examined the possibility that one
of the superiors could be misleading the appellant, whose voice is very similar to
the recorded voice which identifies itself as Varun.
4- Because the Hon’ble Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the new person
appointed as Head Salesman, i.e., Darshan Jain, is actually the nephew of the
Branch’s superior Head of Finance, Sandeep Jain, and that this relationship
explains why the appellant was not allowed his rightful place in the branch.

It is therefore most humbly prayed: -

1. That the impugned Judgment/order dated 21.09.2018 be set aside and the
complaint of the Appellant is liable to be allowed for all reliefs claimed.

2. That full cost of the appeal be awarded to the appellant.

3. That any other order as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper be also passed
in favor of the Appellant.

Dated: 07.10.2018 Counsel for Appellant

Nainital.

Presented by
(Devansh Nema)

Counsel for the Appellant