Pramod Kumar Vs Gannon Dunkerley

Pramod Kumar, appointed as Junior Engineer with Gannon Dunkerley in 1992 and rising to Deputy General Manager over 27 years, was terminated in February 2020 during approved leave for his son's wedding, invoking a 2012 policy clause. He claimed unpaid dues totaling Rs.4,10,184 including balance notice pay, leave encashment for 153 days, travel expenses, and laptop deposit refund, sending legal notices in 2020 and 2022 without response. He filed a recovery suit in Commercial Court, which dismissed it on 30.04.2024 holding it was not a "commercial dispute" under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as it involved employee-employer service recovery from a private entity. In appeal, the High Court agreed the dispute was non-commercial, not fitting categories like merchants or traders, but reasoned that under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, the Commercial Court erred by dismissing instead of returning the plaint for presentation to a competent non-commercial court, distinguishing dismissal as final merits adjudication from return as procedural for wrong forum, citing precedents like AJ Organica Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1311) and Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. K.S. Infraspace LLP (2020) 15 SCC 1 emphasizing return to avoid remedilessness. The appeal was allowed, impugned judgment set aside, suit restored, and Commercial Court directed to return plaint under Order VII Rule 10A CPC with appearance date 03.02.2026, permitting pragmatic use of existing pleadings and evidence with parties' consent for de novo proceedings per EXL Careers v. Franklin Aviation Services (2020) 12 SCC 667.

• A recovery suit for salary or terminal benefits by an employee against a private employer does not qualify as a "commercial dispute" under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as it falls outside enumerated categories like merchants, bankers, financiers, traders, or specified commercial transactions (Para 11).
• Upon determining lack of jurisdiction due to a non-commercial dispute, a Commercial Court must return the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation to the competent court, rather than dismiss the suit, as dismissal constitutes final adjudication while return is procedural for wrong forum (Paras 12-13, citing AJ Organica Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1311 at Para 14; Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. K.S. Infraspace LLP & Anr., (2020) 15 SCC 1 at Para 14-17).
• On return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, de novo proceedings are required, but courts may utilize existing pleadings and evidence (documentary and oral) with parties' consent for pragmatic efficiency (Para 19, citing EXL Careers v. Franklin Aviation Services, (2020) 12 SCC 667).

Case Title: Pramod Kumar Vs Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd.:20.01.2026:RFA(COMM) 348/2024:2026:DHC:2026:DHC:464-DB:Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]