The Respondent as a claimant and Plaintiff had to discharge the initial burden of establishing that the Appellant was sent on deputation overseas. Significantly, while the terms and conditions of employment have been reduced to writing, there is no valid evidence on the basis of which it can be deduced that the Appellant was sent on deputation overseas. On the contrary, it is the contention of the Appellant that she was sent overseas for a business meeting. It is true that the Appellant was represented in the proceedings in the suit by her spouse as the holder of a power of attorney. That however did not obviate the legal requirement that the burden must be discharged by the Plaintiff of establishing its own case. There is no material evidence on the record to indicate that the Appellant was sent on deputation. Deputation has a definite connotation in law. A two-judge Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Inder Singh MANU/SC/1334/1997 : (1997) 8 SCC 372 has clarified the concept of deputation and stressed on the particular rights and liabilities that are associated with a deputation, which occurs only with the consent of the employee. Justice D.P. Wadhwa, speaking for the Court, held:
18. The concept of "deputation" is well understood in service law and has a recognised meaning. "Deputation" has a different connotation in service law and the dictionary meaning of the word "deputation" is of no help. In simple words "deputation" means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department. Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion in his parent department as per the Recruitment Rules. Whether the transfer is outside the normal field of deployment or not is decided by the authority who controls the service or post from which the employee is transferred. There can be no deputation without the consent of the person so deputed and he would, therefore, know his rights and privileges in the deputation post. The law on deputation and repatriation is quite settled as we have also seen in various judgments which we have referred to above...
(emphasis supplied)
A deputation would also involve a third party-the borrowing employer who discharges specific rights and obligations towards the employee and the lending employer. A three-judge Bench of this Court in Umapati Choudhary v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0376/1999 : (1999) 4 SCC 659 clarified the tripartite nature of a deputation in the following terms:
8. Deputation can be aptly described as an assignment of an employee (commonly referred to as the deputationist) of one department or cadre or even an organisation (commonly referred to as the parent department or lending authority) to another department or cadre or organisation (commonly referred to as the borrowing authority). The necessity for sending on deputation arises in public interest to meet the exigencies of public service. The concept of deputation is consensual and involves a voluntary decision of the employer to lend the services of his employee and a corresponding acceptance of such services by the borrowing employer. It also involves the consent of the employee to go on deputation or not. In the case at hand all the three conditions were fulfilled...
Thus, a deputation involves a tripartite consensual agreement between the lending employer, borrowing employer and the employee. Specific rights and obligations would bind the parties and govern their conduct. A transient business visit without any written agreement detailing terms of deputation will not qualify as a deputation unless the Respondent were to lead cogent evidence to indicate that the Appellant was seconded to work overseas on deputation. This aspect of the case has completely been ignored by all the three courts below. The claim was not substantiated having regard to the plain terms of the contract.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 346 of 2022
Decided On: 12.01.2022
Sarita Singh Vs. Shree Infosoft Private Limited
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.
Citation: MANU/SC/0061/2022
Print Page