MUNI LAL TALWAR Vs. CHEMO PHARMA LABORATORIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Chemo-Pharma Laboratories Ltd., the defendant by its "Preliminary letter of appointment' dated November 16, 1972 (p-1) appointed Muni Lal Talwar, the plaintiff, as its Resident Representative at Delhi for a period of 10 years on a remuneration of Rs. 1500.00 per month. Formal letter of appointment (P-2) was issued on December 14, 1972. This letter also contained other terms of the service. By his letter dated December 3, 1974 (D-6) the Marketing Manager of the defendant placed the plaintiff under suspension pending further investigations on three charges namely (1) that he (plaintiff) had not been attending office at Delhi, regularly for the last two months; (2) that his behaviour to his superiors had been un-cooperative and rude; and (3) that he had been debarred from entering D.G.S. & D. Office and how he had been claiming to do the the liaison work. The plaintiff assailed this order by his counsel's notice dated llth January, 1975 (Ex. Public Witness-1/21). It was averred in the notice that the allegations in the suspension letter were vague, untrue and without any foundation and that the Managing Director had no jurisdiction to suspend the plaintiff. It was also pointed out that his salary for the period commencing July 1, 1974 besides Rs. 3,031.00 the expenses incurred by him had not been paid inspite of repeated requests and instead he had been suspended. Without any further investigation or correspondence, the services of the plaintiff were terminated with effect from July 1, 1974 by letter dated January 15, 1975 (Ex. D-3) on the charges mentioned in the suspension letter.

(2.) The plaintiff sent a notice dated 5th May, 1975 (Ex. PV/-1/22) to the defendant stating that his dismissal having been made on unfounded grounds was illegal and claiming Rs. 10,450.00 towards his salary from 1st July 1974 to 15th January, 1975, Rs. 2,06,250.00on account of salary from 16th January, 19/5 to 9th January 1983, Rs. 16,416.00towards provident fund earned upto the date of the notice and to be earned thereafter, Rs. 12,000.00 towards gratuity and Rs. 18.000.00towards bonus. There was uo response and consequently the plaintiff on May 20, 1975 brought this suit for recovery of Rs. two lacs. In addition to the claims made in the notice the plaintiff in the suit also claimed an additional amount of Rs. 25,000.00 for making defamatory charges disparaging his efficiency, regularity, behaviour, character and honesty. The total amount came to Rs. 2,88,116.00 but he confined his claim only to Rs.two lacs.

(3.) It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff had been appointed for a fixed period of ten years. The grounds for dismissal were without any substance and the dismissal order was illegal. The plaintiff had special knowledge of transacting business and obtaining contracts for huge supplies of the pharmaceutical products of manufacture of the defendant and could not obtain a job with similar emoluments, especially when the termination of the service had been made on most defamatory accusation. The plaintiff was entitled to the various amounts claimed in the suit.