Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Dr. M. RAZA ZAIDI VS Respondent: GLAXO WELLCOME PAKISTAN LIMITED, KARACHI
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Arshad Hussain Khan Title: Dr. M. RAZA ZAIDI vs GLAXO WELLCOME PAKISTAN LIMITED, KARACHI Case No.: Suit No,237 of 1999 Date of Judgment:2018-01-25 Reported As: 2018 MLD 1268 Result: Suit decreed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ARSHAD HUSSAIN KHAN, J.---This suit was initially filed on 23.02.1999 against the defendant for Recovery of Money and Damages with the following prayers:- a) Damages in the sum of Rs,10 million for the emotional anguish and distress caused by the refusal to honor the commitment towards the compensation package and the mental agony, emotional stress and hurt caused by the allegations of fraud, misrepresentation and cheating. b) Decree in the sum of Rs,23,42,748.00 at the rate of two gross salaries for eight years of the Plaintiff's service with the Defendant with interest/mark-up at the rate of 22% from 30.10.98 till the date of decree and further interest/mark-up at the same rate from date of decree till its realization. c) Pension calculated according to defendant's policy, which existed at the time of the Plaintiff's resignation. d) Costs of the proceedings from the Defendant. e) Any other, further or better relief that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances. However subsequently, upon application (C.M.A. No,10673/99) of the plaintiff, this Court on 18.12.2000, granted permission to the plaintiff to file amended plaint whereas the defendant was also granted permission to file amended written statement. In pursuance of the said order the parties filed their amended pleadings. The plaintiff though filed amended the plaint however, the prayer clauses in the amended plaint have remained the same. 2. Brief facts as averred in the plaint are that the plaintiff was employed with the defendant, which is an established pharmaceutical company, for eight years as Director Medical and Scientific Information from 1990 to 1998 and he served the defendant with dedication and adhered to the
---
## Page 2
highest standards of profession service until his departure from the defendant in October, 1998. After the change in the defendant's senior management, and without even meeting the formality of consulting him, the plaintiff was arbitrarily removed from the Executive Committee of the defendant. This unwarranted and unprofessional treatment shocked the plaintiff, which caused him severe agony and distress. In the circumstance, he met with Mr. Shahid Qureshi, Director Human Resources and Corporate Affairs and Syed Riaz Ahmed, Commercial Director of the defendant to resolve this predicament, and these officials suggested the plaintiff that he could be officially declared redundant, if Dr. Irum Afaq rejoins the Medical and Regulatory Affairs Department of the defendant. It was explicitly represented to the plaintiff that he would be entitled to a compensation package of two gross salaries for the, number of years he has worked for the defendant if he would act on such a proposal. During meeting with Mr. Qureshi and Mr. Ahmed, the plaintiff candidly discussed that in such circumstances he was considering to either emigrate to U.S. or start practicing as a general medical practitioner or consider alternate employment opportunities. The plaintiff was also told that since he is over 45 years of age, he will also be paid his pension which will be calculated according to the policy which existed at the time of his resignation. The plaintiff conceded to the proposal made by Mr. Qureshi and Mr. Ahmed on behalf of the defendant and plaintiff approached Dr. Irum Afaq and convinced her to rejoin the defendant. At the plaintiffs initiative said Dr. Irum Afaq rejoined the defendant with effect from 02.10.1998. Accordingly, on 26.10.1998, the plaintiff tendered his resignation vide letter of the same date which was dictated to him by Mr. Qureshi, which letter clearly refers to the compensation to be given to the plaintiff with reference to the meeting which took place between the plaintiff, Mr. Qureshi Mr. Ahmed. The plaintiff's resignation was accepted vide acceptance letter dated 28.10.1998 issued by Mr. Qureshi, however, in the acceptance letter plaintiff's agreed compensation package was not mentioned. To satisfy the plaintiff's concern, Mr. Qureshi showed him the original resignation letter dated 26.10.1998 containing the approval of the compensation package by Mr. Alan Eldridge, Chairman and Managing Director of the defendant. The plaintiff was to receive the agreed compensation on 30.10.1998 but instead he was shocked to learn from Mr. Qureshi on 03.11.1998 of the defendant's intention to renege on its legal obligations to pay the agreed compensation package to the plaintiff. The payment of agreed compensation package to the plaintiff was refused on the flimsy ground that he had started a new job after resigning the defendant, such excuse was, not only an afterthought but entirely untenable. Thereafter, plaintiff made repeated efforts for the recovery of the outstanding compensation package through letters dated 11.11.1998, 12.11.1998 and 16.11.1998 but despite all such efforts the defendant failed/refused to pay agreed compensation package to the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff through his advocate addressed legal notice dated 31.12.1998 to the defendant claiming his full compensation package amounting to Rs,23,42,748.00 etc. In their reply dated 14.01.1999 to the plaintiff's legal notice, the defendant denied the assertions of the plaintiff made in his legal notice and also specially denied that the defendant had ever agreed to pay the plaintiff any compensation package but admitted that an ex-gratis hardship allowance was being recommended for the plaintiff on the ground that he was emigrating to USA. But the same was denied when it was discovered that the plaintiff was instead entering into employment with another pharmaceutical company. It is also averred that the resignation letter dated 26.10.1998 clearly referred to a compensation package and requested a waiver of notice period. The defendant's Chairman and Managing Director approved the payment of two gross salaries per year worked on 27.10.1998, however, in order to renege from the obligation, the defendant through Mr. Qureshi has made interpolation in the note on the letter and altered the same so that the agreed compensation package could be denied. The defendant without any lawful cause continued to refuse the rightful claim of the plaintiff and leveled reckless allegation of fraud misrepresentation. Such conduct of the defendant has deeply hurt the plaintiff and has
---
## Page 3
caused him mental-anguish and financial strain. 3. Upon service of the notice of present case, the defendant filed its written statement wherein while denying allegations leveled in the plaint of the instant suit, it has been stated that until October, 1998 the plaintiff was happily employed by the defendant when the plaintiff received the offer from Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) a competing multinational pharmaceutical company. It is also averred that the reporting lines of the plaintiff were changed and or that plaintiff was removed from the Executive Committee was on account of normal corporate reorganization only and nothing else. The rehiring of Dr. ham Afaq was undertaken exclusively at the initiative of the plaintiff who wanted to ensure that as and when he decides to leave the employment of the defendant, his resignation would be immediately accepted. None of the officers of the defendant company had any input in the language or content of the letter of resignation. It has been denied in the written statement that any ex-gratia or any other payment was recommended by Mr. Qureshi for payment to the plaintiff. The Director Human Resources and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Qureshi) did not recommend payment of any amount to the plaintiff due to the fraudulent representation made by him that he was migrating to USA for personal reasons and would face severe financial hardship as a consequence thereof. Although the defendant learnt the true facts from the current employers of the plaintiff but, to-date, the defendant has not divulged to 'BMS' the manner in which the plaintiff had sought to defraud and cheat the defendant. In the written statement it has been specifically denied that the acceptance of resignation as well as approval of the alleged compensation package to the plaintiff was ever shown to the plaintiff by Mr. Qureshi. It has also been denied that any interpolation, as alleged, was committed by the defendant. It has further been stated that having extracted all legal benefits due to it from the defendant, the plaintiff remains unsatisfied and is ought to seek further illegal monetary benefits from the defendant after having voluntarily resigned. Furthermore, no further amounts are due from the defendant to the plaintiff as all his legal dues have been fully settled and paid and the defendant is not liable to pay any amount towards pension and or damages. The suit being frivolous is liable to be dismissed. 4. On pleadings, the followings consent issues were settled/adopted by the Court: 1. Whether the plaintiff suffered severe mental agony and distress due to any act of the Defendant? 2. Whether the plaintiff's contention about migration to USA was true and, if not, whether the same was advanced to make a financial gain? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive from the defendant two gross salaries for each year worked or any other amount in addition to the amount already paid to him on his resignation from service? 3-A. Whether the defendant through Mr. Shahid Qureshi has made any interpolation in the hand written note on resignation letter dated 26.10.1988, and if so, its effect? 4. What should the decree be? 5. The plaintiff in support of his case examined himself Dr. M. Raza Zaidi as P.W-1 [Exhibt-1], whereas the defendant in support of its case has examined Syed Riaz Ahmed as D.W-1 [Exhibt-12] and Mr. Shahid Mustafa Qureshi as DW-2 [Exhibt-13]. 6. The plaintiffs in his examination-in-chief produced the following documents: 1. Affidavit in evidence of the plaintiff as Exh.2 2. Letter dated 28.10.1998 addressed to plaintiff as Exh.3 3. Letter dated 13.11.1998 addressed to plaintiff as Exh.4 4. Legal Notice dated 31.12.1998 as Exh.5 5. Reply legal notice dated 14.1.1999 as Exh.6 6. Resignation letter dated 26.10.1998 as Exh.7 7. Letter dated 11.11.1998 addressed to defendant as Exh.8 The plaintiff was subsequently cross-examined by the counsel of the defendant. For the sake of
---
## Page 4
ready reference, the cross-examination of the plaintiff is reproduced as under:-- "I joined the service of predecessor of Defendant as Manager (Medical Scientific information) in December 1990. The office which I joined on my appointment was designated as "Medical Advisor". When I joined the predecessor of the Defendant, I was drawing basic salary of Rs,9,500/- per month. I see copy of offer letter made to me by M/s. Wellcome Pakistan Limited (Predecessor of the defendant) on 9th December 1990 on which I endorsed my acceptance. I produce the same as Exhibit 9. It is correct that my service continued after creation of the defendant. After creation of the defendant I was not promoted to the Executive Committee but I remained the Director of the Defendant. Voluntarily says that I became the Director of the Wellcome Pakistan Limited in 1993. It is incorrect to suggest that my salary was increased or I was promoted in a higher grade. The increase in my salary was routine matter. It is correct that in my contract of employment there is no term under which I was entitled to claim additional compensation on my tendering resignation. It is correct that the terms of the employment were never renegotiated during my stay with the defendant. Voluntarily says that just before my resignation negotiation took place in which I was assured that if I resign I will be paid an additional compensation package. Negotiations were entered into by me with the Director (Human Resources) of the defendant Mr. Shahid Qureshi. I was given oral assurance by the said Director Mr. Shahid Qureshi that on my tendering resignation I will be paid additional compensation package by the defendant. Except in my resignation which I have tendered to the defendant the additional compensation package is not reflected in any other document produced by me in these proceedings. It is correct that the allegations which I have levelled in para-2 of Exhibit 2 were not communicated by me in writing to the Company. However, I have verbally raised all these complaints which are incorporated in para-2 of my affidavit in evidence to the Director Mr. Shahid Qureshi. It is incorrect to suggest that I have not verbally complained to the Director (Human Resources). I know Syed Riaz Ahmed who is the Commercial Director of the defendant precisely since November 1995. I have good terms with the Director Syed Riaz Ahmed. Mr. Shahid Qureshi the Director (Human Resources) is also known to me since the merger of the defendant. Voluntarily says that both these gentlemen were not Directors at that time when the defendant came into existence but they were just General Managers. I had good terms with Mr. Shahid Qureshi as well. The meetings which I have referred to in para-6 of Exhibit 2 took place in August 1998. These were not the joint meeting with Mr. Shahid Qureshi and Mr. Riaz Ahmed. I was having meetings with them separately. It is incorrect to suggest that I resigned under duress. Voluntarily says that I resigned on the understanding that if I resigned I will be given additional compensation packages. I am presently employed with BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB (BMS) which is a pharmaceutical company. I am drawing Rs,175,000/- salary per month with a Car and with a Driver's Salary of Rs,3,500/-. Once in 5 years I am also entitled to one Refrigerator and one Air Conditioner. I am also provided full medical cover through insurance company. I joined BMS on 2.11.1998. It is correct that I applied in BMS for a job during my employment with the defendant. It is correct that I was interviewed by the BMS during my job with the defendant. I see Exhibit 9 and say that an employee cannot negotiate with any other company for employment during his stay with the defendant. I have never informed the defendant that I was negotiating for a job with BMS. Q. Is BMS a competitor of the defendant? R. Being Pharmaceutical Company, it, is I do not remember exactly as to when I was, firstly' interviewed by BMS for my employment. It may be January, February or March 1998. I was called for interview over phone by the Managing Director of BMS. I was interviewed at times by the Managing Director, the Director (Human Resources) and then by the Lead Team (Executive Committee). It is correct that I was also interviewed by the Representative of the Regional Head Office of the BMS who came from Egypt. I see Ethical Code of Conduct of the defendant and say, that it has also been signed by me. I produce the same as Exhibit 10.
---
## Page 5
Q. I put it to you that in entering into a secret negotiations with the Competitor of the defendant you have violated the terms of the Code of Ethics of the defendant? R. I do not think that I have violated any Code of Ethics while negotiating for my job with BMS. It is incorrect to suggest that Exhibit 7 has not been tampered by Mr. Shahid Qureshi; I see endorsement on the Exhibit 7 made by Mr. Shahid Qureshi and say that the words "don't think" in the first line and the words "weeks" in the second line were added by him subsequently by tampering this document. The tampering came to my knowledge when an application for discovery of the document was made in these proceedings. After I was refused additional compensation package I made a representation to the defendant. My representation was not responded to by the Managing Director of the defendant but instead Mr. Shahid Qureshi, had replied me in writing which I have produced as Exhibit 4. The Managing Director of the defendant at the relevant time was Mr. Alan Elridge. I in additional to the representation which I have made to the Managing Director also complained to the Chairman of the defendant. I might have also sent a copy of the complaint to the Regional Director of the defendant Mr. Ken Windle. The Regional Director responded to my complaint but he rejected my request made in my complaint. I produce the copy of the response of the Regional Director Ken Windle of the defendant as Exhibit 11. The authority to grant additional compensation was with the Managing Director of the defendant, who on the recommendation of the Director (Human Resources) approved such payment. It is correct that the decision taking authority in regard to any additional compensation of any nature is the Managing Director of the defendant. Q. I put it to you that when you submitted your resignation to the defendant you had stated to Mr. Shahid Qureshi that you were migrating to USA and as such you wanted some additional compensation because you would be unemployed in USA? R. It is incorrect. Recalled and reaffirmed I was of 47 years of age when I left the employment of defendant. I am unaware about the age of retirement of an employee in the defendant company. I am not sure that the age of retirement in the Organization of defendant was 58 years at the time when I resigned. I am not even sure that the retirement age in BMS is 60 years. It is correct that I have not lost salary of a single day when I resigned from the defendant and joined BMS. It is incorrect to suggest that I have not suffered damages on account of change of employment. It is incorrect to suggest that I have not suffered any distress or anxiety by the action of the defendant. It is correct to suggest that my all dues were paid by the defendant and only my compensation package agreed by the defendant was not paid. It is correct to suggest that other than the compensation package the remaining dues were paid by the defendant. I was not a Member of Board of the defendant. It is correct to suggest that I had brought back Dr. Irum Afaq so that whenever I will tender my resignation, it would be accepted immediately. Voluntarily said that this was suggested by Mr. Riaz Ahmed who was the Commercial Director. Dr. Irum Afaq is no more working with the defendant. I cannot say whether she has resigned from the employment of the defendant. It is incorrect to suggest that the defendant has never paid any compensation package to any employee upon his tendering resignation. It is correct that I worked with the defendant for seven years and ten months. It is incorrect to suggest that claim in my suit against the defendant is bogus. Re-examination Question\ What was your salary when you joined BMS? AnswerMy salary was Rs,102,000/- per month with car; Driver's salary of Rs, 3,500/- per month and Medical Allowance of Rs,1,950/- per month." 7. The witnesses of the defendant namely Syed Riaz Ahmed as D.W-1 [Exhibt-12] in his examination in chief only produced his affidavit in evidence as [Exh. 12]and he was cross-examined by the
---
## Page 6
counsel of the plaintiff, which cross-examination for the sake of ready reference is reproduced as under:- "In the year 1998, I was Commercial Director in the-defendant company. The plaintiff was supposed to report me. In the year 1995. I was designated as Director Marketing and my position and that of the plaintiff was at par. Voluntarily state that in the year 1995 there were two companies namely Glaxo Pakistan Limited and Wellcome Pakistan Limited and I was in Glaxo Pakistan Limited. The plaintiff has never expressed any dissatisfaction to me in the year 1998. It is correct to suggest that the plaintiff informed me that he is planning to migrate to USA. In the end of October, 1998 I came to know that the plaintiff has Joined Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS). I do not recall who told me about the same. Someone in my company informed me about the joining of the plaintiff in BMS. I do not remember as to what the plaintiff was drawing salary in Glaxo Pakistan Limited. I cannot say that the last salary drawing by the plaintiff was Rs,117,000/-. It is correct to suggest that the plaintiff was supposed to report me but since there are 800 employees working in the company it is not possible for me to know what the salary is being drawn by each of them. I cannot say whether the offer of BMS was good. I cannot produce the record about salary drawn by the plaintiff as it is for Human Resource Department who can produce the same. The "ex-gratia sum" mentioned by me in affidavit-in-evidence is not a fixed amount it can be any amount. It is correct to suggest that the compensation package offered to the plaintiff was conditional. The condition was that in case the company asked someone to leave the company, the company was supposed to compensate him under the agreement and if somebody voluntarily resigned and left the company he is not entitled to such compensation. Except this there was no other condition. I am receiving pension after my retirement. Whatever I have stated in my affidavit-in-evidence is correct and not because that I am loyal to my company. Thereafter, the defendant examined Mr. Shahid Mustafa Qureshi as DW-2[Exhibt-13]. In his evidence he produced affidavit-in-evidence and confidential memo. dated 19.11.1998 as [Exh. 13/1].The witness was subsequently cross-examined by the counsel for the plaintiff. The said cross- examination for the sake of ready reference is also reproduced as under:- "I am under the employment of the defendant company since 1992. Prior to that I was under the employment of Pfizer Laboratory. It is correct to suggest that Pfizer Laboratory is an independent company engaged in the pharmaceutical business and not a direct competitor of the defendant company. I know the plaintiff and cannot categorize him as a fraud and cheat person but on this occasion he lied to me. The plaintiff never told me that he was unhappy in the company. It is correct that his reporting line was changed twice, first he was reporting to Mr. David Josie, Executive Director and then to Mr. Riaz Commercial Director. Mr. Josie left the company sometime in 1998. Reporting line was changed in 1998. I cannot say whether in the year 1995 Mr. Sheikh Riaz Ahmed was junior to the plaintiff. In the year 1995 my designation was Corporate Industrial Relation Manager. It is correct to suggest that I- have met the plaintiff in August, 1998. It is correct to suggest that in August, 1998 when I met Mr. Zaidi he discussed about his employment situation in the company. It is incorrect to suggest that the plaintiff told me that he was being forced to resign the company. It is correct to suggest that the plaintiff informed me that he is planning to leave the company and to migrate to USA for higher studies. He also informed me that he would try to get job in USA and or join medical practice. It is not in my knowledge whether the plaintiff had immigration visa or not. It is correct to suggest that going to USA in the case of plaintiff is hardship. It is incorrect to suggest that the company gives compensation package to its employees who go to USA but company gives ex-gratia under the hardship situation. I do not have any written record about the conversation took place between me and the plaintiff. The company has given ex- gratia in the case as I have stated to one Mr. Hameed at the rate of two and half weeks' gross salaries per year worked. For the first time on 27th October, 1998 I came to know that the plaintiff is
---
## Page 7
going to join BMS on 1st November, 1998. I had been informed by Mr. Kamal, Incharge or Human Resource in the defendant company. On the given date at lunch this conversation took place. It is incorrect to suggest that I met the plaintiff on 25th or 26th October, 1998. I met the plaintiff only on the day when he submitted resignation i,e, 27th October, 1998. I met the plaintiff couple of weeks before he submitted his resignation. I met him in the head office. However, the said meeting was not taken place in my office. In the said meeting no conversation was taken place regarding the resignation of the plaintiff. It is incorrect to suggest that I have advised the plaintiff to write in the resignation letter about Dr. Erum Afaq joining the department. On 27th October, 1998 we met in the morning. It is incorrect to suggest that any meeting was taken place on 28th October, 1998. After the resignation of the plaintiff, I have not seen the plaintiff. It is incorrect to suggest that I have met the plaintiff on 28th October, 1998 and shown him handwritten approval of his compensation package. I see Ex.7 and say that handwritten portion on the said exhibit is of mine. I have written the said note on the resignation letter at about 12.30 p.m. on the given date. It is…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.