V NARAYANAN Vs. MADURA CO P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff, from the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, varying the decree granted in his favour by the District Munsif. Nagapattinam. The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant-company and was dismissed from its service on 8. 6. 1962. He thereupon preferred an appeal under Section 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, Act 36 of 1947, and on 14. 11. 1962 the order of dismissal was set aside. On the defendant-company refusing to entertain the plaintiff in service, after issuing notice, the plaintiff instituted the suit out of which this second appeal arises claiming reliefs, inter alia, for reinstatement in service, for salary from the date of dismissal till the date of plaint with interest thereon and, in the alternative, damages for wrongful dismissal in a sum of Rs. 2000. The defendant company raised various defences, inter alia, challenging the validity of the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, the appellate tribunal under Section 41 of the Act aforesaid.

(2.) IT is unnecessary to consider whether the civil Court had not the jurisdiction to go behind the order and whether it is not open to a party affected to challenge the correctness of the order made under Section 41 in a civil court, as on the merits the defendant-company has failed to establish that its order of dismissal was not wrongful. The trial court which went into the merits of the case finds that it could be safely accepted that the order of dismissal of the plaintiff passed by the defendant-company was wrongful and that there was no proper enquiry before the passing of the order. In that view, the trial court decreed in favour of the plaintiff the arrears of salary claimed and directed also his reinstatement. On appeal therefrom, the learned Subordinate Judge of Nagapattinam set aside the order of reinstatement, and, in my view, quite properly. He held that the plaintiff would, however, be entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal and he granted the plaintiff 9 months' salary as damages. It is from this decision that the employee has come up in second appeal.

(3.) CLEARLY, the plaintiff cannot claim relief by way of reinstatement. The matter is before the civil court under its ordinary jurisdiction and the relationship between the parties is contractual. The law governing the matter is the ordinary law of master and servant. The special reliefs which can be granted by a tribunal adjusting industrial relations cannot be availed of before the civil court in a regular common law suit. To grant reinstatement would be to specifically enforce a contract of service. The right of an employee whose services are wrongfully terminated is to claim damages.