INDIA INTERNATIONAL CENTRE Vs. S N PANDIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions which were before 'the trial Court also arise in this appeal, viz., (1) what was the duration of the contract by which Respondent S. N. Pandit was employed by the appellant India International Centre (hereafter called "the Centre") and (2) whether the termination of the respondent's service .the appellant before the expiry of the duration was in breach of the contract and if so to what damages is the respondent entitled. These questions have been determined by the trial Court and would have to be determined in appeal primarily on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the issues framed, and the evidence adduced before the trial Court. If the facts had been differently pleaded, differently put into issues and proved, a different view of law could perhaps have been taken. But, as will be shown later, such a different case cannot now arise on the existing record.

(2.) In a suit for damages for breach of contract of employment filed by Pandit against the Centre, the terms of the contract were exclusively stated in paras 12 to 14 of the plaint. Offer of employment by the Centre to Pandit was made on 19th April 1961. Pandit replied on 30th April 1961 accepting the terms but requesting for the adition of two more terms, namely. (1) that his designation should be Manager and not Hostel Manager, and (2) that the term of service should be at least five years. In the eye of law, this was a counter-offer. It was accepted by the Centre on 14th May 1961 adding that contract suitably worded would have to be carefully drawn up. However, no formal contract was ever drawn up. On 18th May 1961 Pandit thanked the Centre for appointing him as a Manager for a contract period of five years. In the written statement, the Centre completely admitted paras 12 and 13 of the plaint which contained the basis of the plaintiff's case that the contract of employment was confined to the four letters mentioned above, and that the term of his employment was to be at least five years. The Centre purported not to admit para 14 and to deny the interpretation placed by Pandit on the letter of 14th May 1961. The Centre, however, did not take up the stand that the contract was not confined to these four letters. The construction of the duration of the contract pleaded by the Centre was two-fold. Firstly, it was stated that the contract for five years' service was never stipulated and Pandit accepted his appointment on 18th May 1961 without any stipulation as to the contract for five years. This assertion was in flat contradiction of the admission of paras 12 and 13 of the plaint and the letters which specified the period of contract as being for five years. Secondly, it was stated that the Centre never intended to offer to Pandit a firm and unqualified tenure of office for five years. The intention of the parties, as mentioned in the letter of 14th May 1961, was that a written contract would have to be entered into which would embody all the terms. A provision would have then been made in it for the termination of the contract with reasonable notice on either side. That such was the intention of the parties would be clear from the plaintiff's letter of 13th February 1961 and its enclosure. The plaintiff understood the security of tenure only to mean a reasonable period of notice. Pandit started working on 1st July 1961. On 28th December 1962, the Centre terminated the employment of Pandit forthwith staling that three months' pay in lieu of three months' notice would be later paid to him. On 2nd January 1963 Pandit asked for being supplied with the grounds of his dismissal. On 5th January 1963 the Centre replied that the employment was terminated not as disciplinary action but by the offer of salary for three months in lieu of three months' notice.

(3.) Consistantly with his stand, Pandit asserted in paras 23 to 25 of the plaint that the termination of his employment before the expiry of the period of five years beginning from 1st July 1961 and ending with 30th June 1966 was a breach of the contract of employment. The damages claimed by him were the salary that would have been payable to him for the remaining period of the contract of service. In the replication, he also alleged that the Centre refused to give him a certificate and he was not able to get any alternative employment during the remaining period of the contract of service. The defence of the Centre to the plea of damages is that either the termination of the employment was legal or alternatively that Pandit was not entitled to damages beyond the salary for three months which was the period of reasonable notice by which his employment could be terminated.