RAMACHARYA Vs. COMMONWEALTH TRUST LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who was the plaintiff in the lower court, filed the suit, from which the present appeal arises, to recover Rs. 18,000/- as damages for breach of contract, in dismissing him from service before the term of his employment expired. He was appointed Dyeing Master by the respondent company in June, 1949 in their weaving factory at Calicut. Initially his appointment was only for three months but he was confirmed even earlier and an agreement was entered into between the parties on 1st July, 1949, which was to be in force for a term of three years. This was renewed even before the end of the term and a new agreement was executed to enure for three years from 1st of October, 1949 with a re-graded salary. Before the expiry of this term a third agreement was entered into between the parties on 12th September, 1952, which was to come into force from 1st October, 1952. We are concerned in this appeal only with this last agreement. On the 30th of January, 1953 the defendant company's General Manager in India caused a notice of termination of service of the plaintiff to be served on him. This notice, Ext. A13, directed the plaintiff to hand over charge the very next day and it also offered to pay him three months' salary. The appellant handed over charge on the 31st of January, 1953 as directed in Ext. A13 and he also protested to the manner in which his service was terminated. Some correspondence passed between the parties and some attempt at arbitration was also made, with which we are not concerned in this appeal. The appellant claimed that his employment was for a period of three years certain and therefore the defendant could not terminate his service without assigning good reasons and without giving him an opportunity to meet those charges. He further contended that the notice of termination of his service was void. In the result, he claimed the full salary for the balance of the three years' term of his employment, which remained unexpired at the time of his discharge. The appellant had a further case that Ext. A13 was not issued by a properly constituted authority, who had the power to issue such a notice, for, according to him, the General Manager in India was not competent to discharge him from service.

(2.) The defendants contended, inter alia, that the appointment of the appellant was not for a period of three years certain, but was only an appointment terminable by the defendants under the terms of the agreement, Ext. All, dated 12th September, 1952. They also contended that they offered three months' salary to the appellant which was refused by him. It was further contended by the defendants that the General Manager, Mr. Burnett, was competent to terminate the service of the plaintiff and as such Ext. A13 was proper and valid.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge, in a well written judgment, considered all aspects of the case and came to the conclusion that Mr. Burnett had the authority to terminate the service of the plaintiff, that the defendants did not, as a matter of fact, pay three months' salary to the plaintiff and as such they violated the provisions of the agreement, Ext. A11, and that the defendants had the right to determine the service of the plaintiff without giving a charge sheet to him and giving him an opportunity to be heard. In the result he held that the termination of service of the plaintiff was in violation of the provisions of Ext. A11 and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to damages. But the learned Judge fixed the quantum of damages at three months' salary in lieu of notice and disallowed the claim of the plaintiff for the balance. He decreed the suit for three months' salary, Rs. 2, 250/-, and allowed proportionate costs also to the plaintiff. The defendants were directed to bear their costs and were also not given costs against the plaintiff for the portion of the plaintiff's claim which was disallowed. The plaintiff appeals claiming that the lower court should have allowed his claim in full and the defendants have filed a cross appeal alleging that the lower court should have allowed them proportionate costs on the portion of the claim of the plaintiff disallowed by the lower court.