PRATAP BHANU Vs. CHAIRMAN MODISTONE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Pratap Bhanu filed a suit for recovery of emoluments @Rs.18,402/- per month from January, 1997 to June, 1997 and further for a decree for payment of Rs.2 lakhs as damages suffered by him due to mental torture, harassment and humiliation caused to him as a result of wrongful termination of his services by the defendants in the suit. In addition to above reliefs, he also claimed interest @24% per annum on the amount due to him. The suit filed by him was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 3rd February, 2003 by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, giving rise to the present Regular First Appeal.

(2.) The plaint was amended by the appellant/plaintiff and it was averred in the amended plaint that the plaintiff had done B.Sc.(Hons.) Mathematics in Ist Division in 1970 and M.Sc. Mathematics in Ist Division in 1972. Thereafter he worked in Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and did research work in the fields of Approximation theory and Approximation Functions by General Orthonormal Polynomials on A finite Segment. He was selected as Management Trainee and so appointed with M/s Modi Rubber Limited, a sister concern of Modi Group of Companies in May 1975. During his tenure of service, he performed his assigned duties satisfactorily in sales accounts department.

(3.) In April, 1977, he was deputed to look after the mechanisation on accounts at Plant at Modipuram. He was appointed as General Administrator in M/s Graphics Nepal, another sister concern of Modi Group of Companies. In August, 1983, the plaintiff was appointed as Manager Coordination in M/s Stone Limited, another sister concern of Modi Group of Companies. He claimed to have performed all his duties to the satisfaction of all concerned and was responsible for looking after the software for branch operation and head office, which was developed by him in the year 1994. The defendants without assigning any reason and with mala fide intention had terminated his service on 31st December, 1996 vide letter dated 4th December, 1996 issued under signatures of defendant No.2. It was the case of the plaintiff/appellant that the said termination was wrong illegal and without any basis. Even notice of 30 days as per terms of appointment was not given to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was not permitted to continue to perform his duties despite the fact that he approached all concerned quarters.