A N SHUKUL Vs. PHILIPS INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS suit seeks a declaration that the termination of the services of the plaintiff by the Defendants was illegal and seeks a consequential mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to pay the Plaintiff damages to the tune of rs. 46,74,655/ -.

(2.) THE Plaintiff joined the services of Defendant No. 1 Philips India Limited on 26th April 1971 as an Assistant. On 2nd July 1974 he got promoted from Grade ea-3 to EA-4 and on 4th January 1982 to the next Grade EA-5. He was promoted to management Group-7 on 3rd June 1994. He was ultimately promoted to Management group-6 on 15th May 1995. According to the Plaintiff he was called by the branch Head, Defendant No. 2 on 2nd August 2002 and informed that he would have to quit the service within the next three months. According to the Plaintiff, "he was shocked and depressed". He informed the Branch Head that his financial commitments at that stage was such that it would not be possible for him to do so. On 9th September 2003 he was called by the Branch Service Head as well as by the General Manager (Service) to the office situated at Okhla, New Delhi and told that if he did not resign on his own, his services would be terminated unceremoniously and he would not be given any benefits in such eventuality. The plaintiff alleged that thereafter all work was taken away from him and he was not allowed to discharge his duties. He was made to sit in a corner and while away his time throughout the day resulting in deep humiliation and anxiety. Finally, the Plaintiff served a legal notice dated 14th December 2002 on defendant No. 1 protesting about the impending illegal action being contemplated against him. Soon thereafter on 19th December 2002 the Defendant No. 1 issued an order terminating the services of the Plaintiff without assigning any reason. A cheque for the terminal dues was enclosed. It is stated by the Plaintiff that there was an error in this as well since the terminal dues were calculated on the basis of the basic pay instead of the gross salary thus resulting in a short payment of Rs. 88,800/ -. A representation dated 9th January 2003 was made by the Plaintiff requesting reinstatement. Thereafter, the present suit was filed for the aforementioned reliefs.

(3.) IN the written statement it is pointed out by Defendant No. 1 that the relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 was purely contractual and that the Plaintiffs services were terminated in terms of the said contract. There was no cause of action that had arisen in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. In terms of Clause 3 (c) of the appointment letter dated 26th April 1971 it was stipulated that "either party may terminate your service by giving one months notice or wages/salary in lieu thereof. " Clause 5 of the promotion letter dated 3rd June 1994 by which the Plaintiff was promoted to Management Group 6 stated that his services could be terminated "by either party giving the other three months written notice or salary in lieu thereof. " it is accordingly stated that after enjoying the benefit of service the plaintiff cannot not seek to challenge the contract entered into by him. On facts it was submitted that the Defendant Company went through the process of reorganization and reconstruction in keeping with the highly competitive changed economic scenario and rapid changes in electronic technology. In these changed circumstances, the services of the Plaintiff were no longer required. He was informed in August 2002 that he could not be retained in service and that he would be given pay for three months in lieu of notice in accordance with the terms of employment so that he could make alternate suitable arrangements. It is further pointed out that the defendant No. 1 had taken into account the possible hardship that the Plaintiff might face and he had therefore been an ex gratia amount of Rs. 2,50,000 as part of the terminal dues.