GOETZE INDIA LTD Vs. H R THIMAPPA GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are before this Court assailing the judgment and decree dated 17. 1. 2004 passed by the Court of the XXXV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore city in O. S. No. 7383/1999. By the judgment impugned in this appeal, the Civil Judge, apart from allowing IA-VI permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint to include the claim for damages, has declared the order of termination dated 30. 6. 1999 marked as Ex. P13 in the suit as illegal, unjust arbitrary and the same is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The learned Civil Judge has further directed reinstatement of the plaintiff to the same post which be was holding on the date of termination and damages of Rs. 7,65,216/- has been awarded to the plaintiff. By the said Judgment, the Civil judge has further directed that the Court fee of Rs. 56,665/- payable by the plaintiff shall be paid by defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The appellants are therefore aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge. While examining the correctness or otherwise of the judgment, we propose to refer to the parties in the same rank as referred to before the Civil Court for the sake of convenience.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to the suit before the Civil Court are, the plaintiff, who is a diploma holder in Metallurgy, joined the defendant/organisation as a junior Engineer on 10. 01. 1980 and thereafter worked in different sections in the defendant/management as referred to in the plaint The plaintiff contends that due to his sincere work, he was promoted as Engineer (JME) and further promotions were earned by him and accordingly he was working as Assistant Manager (foundry production) at the point of his termination. In support of the contention of the plaintiff that his efficient services have been recognised by the defendant/management, the plaintiff has referred to the promotions, increments and the certificates issued to him in this regard both for his individual performance as well as being a member of the team to which certificates were issued. The plaintiff has thus contended that he had rendered meritorious service for a period of 19 years and 5 months and at this point on 2. 7. 1999 to his shock and surprise, he was served with the order of termination of his service and the order of termination bearing reference No. PERS/dgmp/46395/bil/99 dated 30. 6. 1999 was enclosed along with the communication dated 2. 7. 1999. The said order was accompanied by notice pay in respect of the said termination. The plaintiff therefore contends that the order of termination issued to him casts stigma since the same indicates that he has been terminated for unsatisfactory work. At that point, he was aged 50 years, his chance of getting an alternate employment elsewhere was remote and he had a family consisting of his wife and daughters who were attending school and college. In attacking the said order of termination the plaintiff contended that the said order of termination was malafide inasmuch as the same had been issued as a counter blast since the plaintiff had initiated criminal proceedings against senior officers on the charge of misappropriation/embezzlement of the funds of the housing co-operative society which was formed for the benefit of the employees working in the defendant-management The plaintiff who was a member of housing society had initiated the said criminal cases against the office bearers of the society who were the said senior officers, which was registered in CC No. 8296/1998 before the Court of IV CMM, Bangalore. The plaintiff farther contended that the third defendant viz. , Sri B. V. S. S. Sastry, the then Deputy General manager (Mfg) in the defendant/management along with other officers had indulged in threatening the plaintiff to withdraw the said complaint and as such the plaintiff was constrained to file another criminal miscellaneous petition in No. 184/1999. The plaintiff therefore alleges that at the first instance, the defendant/management led by the said Deputy General Manager summoned the plaintiff to his chamber on 19. 3. 1999 at about 2. 30 p. m. and directed the plaintiff to sit there everyday in the chair provided in the room next to his chamber and the plaintiff further contends that he has been harassed further only as a sequell to pressurise the plaintiff to withdraw the criminal complaints. When all the said pressure tactics had failed, the defendants issued the termination order dated 30. 6. 1999.

(3.) THE contention of the plaintiff therefore is that the said order of termination though claimed to have been issued by the defendants exercising the power under Clause 15 (a and e) of the Service rules and as per the terms and conditions of his appointment order, the same is not an order of termination simplicitor but is a punitive one made in retaliation. The plaintiff has further attacked the said Clause 15 (a and e) as also being opposed to public policy and being contrary to section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.