TILAK RAJ CHOPRA Vs. ALITALIA AIRLINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.4,50,000.00 as damages on alleged wrongful dismissal of his service by the defendant.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that he joined the defendant in 1964 as Sales Representative and was promoted as Senior Sales Representative and subsequently as Regional Sales Supervisor for Northern India and Nepal. During this period his service record was outstanding. Not having job satisfaction he tendered resignation on or about 9.8.1973. However, he was called by the Chief of defendant in Rome and in appreciation of his services he was offered promotion and so he withdrew his resignation and he was then promoted as Sales Supervisor for Northern India and Nepal on higher salary in September, 1973. He was also informed that he would be governed by the service Rules and Regulations of the defendant applicable to the Executives in India. The services of the plaintiff were terminated by the defendant on 31.12.1974. It is alleged that as various allegations of misconduct have been alleged in the letter of termination and the order is not a simpliciter termination of service but is dismisal for misconduct which could not have been done without complying with the provisions of the Rules and Regulations applicable and holding an inquiry under the said Regulations. The action is malafide, illegal, wrongful, oppressive, besides being in breach of rules and regulations. At the time of termination of his services he was aged about 41 years and according to the rules and regulations applicable he would have continued till the age of 58 years. He has claimed compensation on account of salary, yearly bonus, house rent allowance, leave equivalent, LTC, Medical Expenses, Gratuity, Mess allowance, transport etc. amounting to Rs.8,04,400.00 . However, he has given up claim for Rs.3,54,400.00 and has claimed only a sum of Rs.4,50,000.00 . The break up of the amounts claimed under various heads of the amount claimed as damages, however, has not been specified.

(3.) The defendant has filed written statement and contested the claim of plaintiff. It has not been disputed that the plaintiff had been employed with the defendant since 1964. It is alleged that the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant was purely contractual and services of the plaintiff have been terminated under Rule 23 of the Rules and Regulations of the service, which provided that services could be terminated by either party by giving one month's notice or one month's salary which has actually been done in this case. It is also alleged that the conduct of the plaintiff was not found satisfactory as complaints were received against him from Travel Agents about his conduct which was in contravention of the terms and conditions of the service. As the termination of services is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the service, the defendant was not obliged to hold any inquiry and the termination is legal and valid. It is denied that the plaintiff is entitled to the amounts as claimed. It is alleged that the plaintiff has been serving with Oriental Travels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi ever since his services were terminated by the defendant and for this reason also he is not entitled to any damages. In any case he is not entitled to more than one month's salary as compensation and the suit is not maintainable and is otherwise filed after an inordinate delay.