SARAN Vs. COCHIN REFINERIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal by the plaintiff, the only question urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the termination of the plaintiffs services from the 1st defendant Company, based on the findings of the 2nd defendant, at a domestic enquiry, without affording the plaintiff an opportunity to have the services of a legal practitioner of his choice for his defence is vitiated and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for in the plaint.

(2.) THE plaintiff was appointed as a Mechanical Superintendent in the 1st defendant Company and he entered service on 17th April, 1967. The terms of the contract of appointment are contained in Ext. A1 offer made by the 1st defendant Company and accepted by the plaintiff. As per Ext. A1 the plaintiff is to be on probation for one year during which period the appointment is terminable without notice and after confirmation with one month's notice on either side. Both sides agree that the petitioner is not a workman entitled to the benefits of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is also agreed that there are no rules or regulations relating to the conditions of service of persons like the plaintiff in the 1st defendant Company. His appointment and conditions of service are purely contractual and are governed by the terms of Ext. A1 offer for appointment accepted by the plaintiff.

(3.) EXT. B23, dated 1st October, 1971 is a memo of charges issued to the plaintiff by the Managing Director of the 1st defendant-Company. Ext. B23 was accompanied by a statement of facts on the basis of which charges were framed against the plaintiff that (1) he had created false documents to alter his date of birth as originally entered in his application presented to the Company seeking employment and (2) he had sold his private car to a contractor usually engaged by the 1st defendant-Company at an exhorbitant price and rendered himself under an obligation to the contractor to grant him favours at the cost of the Company. The 1st defendant nominated the 2nd defendant the Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries, Government of India, Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi, to conduct ii domestic enquiry into the charges framed against the plaintiff, and one T. P. Jacob, who was at the relevant time an Inspector of Police in the C. B. I, as Presenting Officer on behalf of the Company. Neither the Enquiry Officer nor the Presenting Officer was on the pay rolls of the Company. They were independent personnel whose services were secured by the 1st defendant-Company to hold a domestic enquiry against the plaintiff. The plaintiff was allowed to be represented by Sri Padmakumar, a Senior Officer in the service of the 1st defendant-Company. The plaintiffs request for permission to avail of the services of a legal practitioner for his defence was rejected. Sri Padmakumai appeared on behalf of the plaintiff at the domestic enquiry. Witnesses were examined on behalf of the Management and cross examined on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had also examined defence witnesses. Documents were marked at the domestic enquiry. The 2nd defendant Enquiry Officer came to the finding that the plaintiff was guilty of both the charges levelled against him. Accepting the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the 1st defendant-Company terminated the service of the plaintiff after affording him a further opportunity to show cause why the punishment proposed should not be imposed on him. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that his services were unlawfully terminated by the 1st defendant and for damages that the Court may fix for such unlawful termination.