HINDUSTAN AIRCRAFT LTD Vs. SAMBANDHAM G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Bangalore, in Regular Appeal No. 219 of 1960, reversing those of the Second Munsif, Bangalore, in Original Suit No. 467 of 1947. The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant since the year 1951 as a painter working in the bus-body section of the Hindustan Aircraft (Private), Ltd. (the defendant). It is alleged that the plaintiff was getting Rs. 2-7-0 per day plus dearness allowance of Rs. 41 per month and thus, was getting as average salary of Rs. 110 per month. The plaintiff was, therefore, a daily-rated workman. His services were terminated, as could be seen from the termination notice Ex. p-1 dated 1/3 May, 1957, with effect from 4 p.m. on 6 May, 1957. The reason set out in Ex. P. 1 is that the termination enquiry committee which considered the explanation offered by the plaintiff declined to accept the plaintiff's explanation and decided to terminate his service on grounds of misconduct. The misconduct alleged against the plaintiff can be gathered from Ex. P. 2 dated 10/11 July, 1956, which reads as follows :

(2.) The plaintiff submitted his explanation as per Ex. P. 3 on 14 July, 1956. In brief, his stand is that he was keeping the brushes with many other materials concerning his pre-treatment and pre-painting duties. He admitted that the five letter brushes were found as alleged by the defendant; that the removal of the five letter brushes was attributable to his carelessness and that he did not intend to take these articles. He also expressed his regret for his mistake and prayed to be excused. He assures the management that he will not commit such mistake of carelessness in future. Enquiry in connexion with this misconduct appears to have been held on two days, viz., 31 December, 1956 and 9 April, 1957. After enquiry, the committee decided to terminate his services on grounds of misconduct. The plaintiff alleges that there has been no misconduct whatsoever on his part and that the termination of his services is not proper. He contends that the enquiry held by the termination enquiry committee is not an enquiry worth the name and that he had no opportunity whatsoever to rebut the allegation of misconduct, and, therefore, the proceedings of the enquiry committee is opposed to law, equity and natural justice. Therefore, Original Suit No. 464 of 1957 was filed for a decree (a) declaring that there has been no "misconduct" on the part of the plaintiff; and (b)(i) directing the defendant to continue the plaintiff in service as from 7 May, 1957, and to pay him the salary as from that date, or, in the alternative; (ii) pay him a sum of Rs. 1,655.34 by way of damages for wrongful termination, items being : RS. (1) Equivalent to six months' salary at Rs. 110 a month ... 660.00 (2) Payment of provident fund amount (Rs. 497.67) sub-scribed by the plaintiff together with defendant's equal contribution ... ... ... 995.34 --------- Total ... 1,655.34 ---------

(3.) He also asked for payment of gratuity after ascertaining the same.