S BABU Vs. ARAVUKAD KSHETHRAYOGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.1226/1998 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Alappuzha. Respondents are the defendants. Appellant instituted the suit seeking a decree for declaration that Ext.A4 order issued by first respondent dismissing him from service of second respondent as an Instructor is null and void and not enforceable in law and therefore he is entitled to be reinstated in service. He also sought a decree for mandatory injunction directing respondents to reinstate him in service. Appellant was appointed as an Instructor in second respondent Aravukad Industrial Training Centre, Punnapra on 14.6.1990. On 10.8.1998, he was placed under suspension under Ext.A1 order and after an enquiry pursuant to Ext.A3 memo of charges he was dismissed from service. It was challenged in the suit contending that the dismissal was illegal and the procedures were not complied with before dismissing him from service and as the dismissal is in violation of the principles of natural justice, it is to be declared null and void. Respondents filed a written statement contending that the suit itself is not maintainable and if at all the remedy is to claim damages. It was contended that first respondent is an unregistered voluntary association and employment of appellant is not protected by any statute and after due enquiry he was dismissed from service and it cannot be challenged in the civil court and therefore appellant is not entitled to the decree sought for.

(2.) Learned Munsiff framed the necessary issues. On the evidence of Pws. 1 to 5, DW1 and Exts.A1 to A12 and Exts.B1 to B4, learned Munsiff dismissed the suit holding that appellant is not entitled to the protection of any statute and therefore he is not entitled to the decree sought for. Appellant challenged the decree and judgment before Sub Court, Alappuzha in A.S.166/2000. Learned Additional Sub Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the finding of the learned Munsiff and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the Second Appeal.

(3.) Notice was issued to respondents before admission.