HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED Vs. S.M.SIVAGAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit of the present plaintiff in O.S.No.4433/2009, in the Court of learned XVI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, (CCH No.12), (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court'), filed against the present respondents for the relief of recovery of a sum of Rs.3,28,959/- with interest thereupon, came to be dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2011. It is against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the trial Court is that the plaintiff is a Public Sector Undertaking and has been carrying on the activity of manufacture and services of defence equipments. The 1st defendant (respondent No.1 herein) joined the plaintiff-Company as an Executive Trainee under the scheme of Junior Executive Trainee. She had to serve with the plaintiff for a period of five years from the date of her joining and she had undertaken to refund the expenditure incurred by the plaintiff in her training, including salary and allowances, to the tune of Rs.3 lakhs as per the appointment letter dated 10.4.2007. The appointment order dated 10.4.2007 was issued to the 1st defendant. Both defendant Nos.1 and 2 entered into an Agreement dated 31.5.2007 with the plaintiff, wherein the 2nd defendant has stood as a surety for the 1st defendant and in case of breach of agreement, both the defendants were agreed to be held liable jointly and severally. As per the agreement, the 1st defendant had to complete a probationary period of one year, including twelve weeks specialised training and also should have served the plaintiff-Company at least for a period of four years, excluding the probationary period of one year. However, after joining the company and serving it for thirteen months, the 1st defendant remained unauthorisedly absent from 2.7.2008. Thus, she has remained absent for the remaining duration of fortyseven months. Since she has not served the company for sixty months from 31.5.2007, which was against the terms of the Agreement and had remained unauthorisedly absent for the remaining duration of fortyseven months, she was liable to pay to the Company the amount agreed in the Agreement which is a sum of Rs.3 lakhs. As such, a legal notice to the 1st defendant was also issued on 23.4.2009. The 1st defendant has given a vague reply to the same vide her reply dated 12.5.2009. However, since she failed to make good the amount as per the agreement to the plaintiff-Company, the plaintiff was constrained to institute the suit against both the defendants.

(3.) In response to the summons served upon them, both the defendants appeared through their counsels and filed their respective written statements. The 1st defendant in her written statement though admitted that she was appointed as an Engineer with the plaintiff- Company, but, she contended that the agreement that was got executed by her was undated. She was initially appointed as an Engineer for specialised training for a period of twelve weeks. However, she stated that, probationary period was for one year, including the specialised training. She admitted that the provisional appointment order was issued to her on 10.4.2007 and stated that she had successfully completed the period of probation and the posting was also confirmed on 10.4.2008. She stated that a tripartite agreement was entered into and signed by her and defendant No.2 on 29.5.2007. She highlighted that one of the terms of the said agreement permits an employee to go on unauthorised absence also. She contended that, after successful completion of the probationary period of one year i.e., from 10.4.2007, she being an employee of the plaintiff-Company, was entitled to avail unauthorised leave without pay and study leave and the period of absence or leave should have been excluded. She stated that she had valid reasons for her alleged absence. The ill-health of her mother and her (defendant No.1) marriage and her subsequent pregnancy were all made her to be away from her employment. However, she contended that she has been regularly intimating and informing the plaintiff about all these developments, including through her various letters. She stated that she has availed leave with the concurrence of the plaintiff and she has never committed any breach nor violated any of the rules. With this, she prayed for dismissal of the suit.