RAGHUNATHAN Vs. F A C T LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff in O.S.No. 277 of 1985 before the Munsiff's Court, Parur is challenging in this Second Appeal the dismissal of his suit and the appeal filed against such dismissal before the Sub Court, Parur as A.S.No.156 of 1987. The sole defendant in the suit, namely, the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. is the respondent in the appeal.

(2.) The relevant facts are not in dispute and can briefly be stated thus: Plaintiff was selected by the defendant as a management trainee as per Ext.A1 letter dated 15-11-1979. At the time of joining the service of the defendant as a management trainee, plaintiff executed Ext.A2 bond dated 1-12-1979 undertaking to undergo training for two years and thereafter to serve the company for five years. Clause (3) of Ext.A2 bond provided that if the plaintiff fails or neglects or refuses to complete the training period and to serve the company for five years, he should pay to the company liquidated damages of Rs.10,000/-. At the time when the plaintiff executed Ext.A2 bond, Ext.A5 circular issued by the Central Government was in force. The said circular was to the effect that enforcement of bonds executed by the employees of a public enterprise at the time of joining service should not be insisted upon in case executants of such bonds joins a Central Government/State Government, Quasi Government organisations or another public enterprise subject to the condition that a fresh bond is executed by the employee to ensure that he serves the new employer for the balance of the original bond period. Plaintiff while he was undergoing the training directly applied for the post of Grade A Officer in the Reserve Bank of India on29-1-1981 pursuant to Ext.A4 notification dated 10-1-1981. After a written examination and interview plaintiff was selected and appointed as Grade A Officer in the Reserve Bank of India. Meanwhile, as per Ext. A3 plaintiff was placed in the Managerial Cadre of the Company after successful completion of the training period. On receiving the appointment order, plaintiff submitted his resignation letter before the defendant on 29-4-1982 requesting to relieve him with effect from 22-5-1982. Defendant insisted that the plaintiff should deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- as liquidated damages as a condition for accepting the resignation. Such payment was insisted upon mainly on the basis of the terms of the bond and a circular dated 23-5-1981 issued by the Central Government regarding enforcement of bonds executed by the employees of public enterprises marked in the suit as Ext. A18. Plaintiff accordingly deposited Rs.10,000/- on 7-5-1982 under protest. Suit has been filed for a return of the amount so deposited with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of deposit till realisation.

(3.) In the suit, plaintiff has inter alia contended that though he has executed Ext.A2 bond, the terms of the said bond cannot be enforced against him in this case in view of the enabling provisions in Ext.A5 circular. Ext.A18 circular which came into force long after the submission of his application to the Reserve Bank of India cannot be applied in his case so as to deny the benefit of Ext.A5 circular by which himself and the company was bound at the time when he applied for the new job in the Reserve Bank of India.