MALABAR CEMENTS LTD Vs. K.K.CHANDRABABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in a suit for realization of damages is the appellant in the second appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff is a public sector company. The first defendant was engaged by the plaintiff as a diploma trainee. As per the terms of the engagement, the first defendant had to be on training for a period of two years. He was entitled to only a consolidated stipend of Rs.600/-per month for the first year of training and Rs.750/-per month for the second year. The terms of the engagement also provided that on S.A. No. 793 of 2001 3 successful completion of the training, if the plaintiff desires to have the first defendant in their service, then the first defendant has to serve the plaintiff for a period of three years. The first defendant was also required to execute a bond along with a surety. The first defendant joined the services of the plaintiff on 1.2.1990 after executing the bond along with the second defendant, his father. As per the terms of the bond, the first defendant agreed, among others, that he will not leave the services of the plaintiff during the period of training and that he would refund the plaintiff the full amount of stipend received and pay 50% of the stipend receivable for the remaining period of training by way of damages, if he leaves the services of the plaintiff during the period of training. The case set out by the plaintiff in the plaint is that the first defendant left the services of the plaintiff while undergoing training, violating the terms of the bond, on 3.7.1991 and therefore, he is liable to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.13,479.03 in terms of the bond. The suit was for realisation of the said amount with interest from the defendants.

(3.) The defendants resisted the suit contending, among others, that the secretary of the plaintiff, who instituted the suit on behalf of the plaintiff, was not competent to institute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff and that the suit is, therefore, not maintainable. It was also contended by the defendants that the bond relied on by the plaintiff is not one voluntarily executed by the defendants. It was further contended by the defendants that, at any rate, the plaintiff is not entitled