MACHIRAJU PARTHASARATHY Vs. TOBACCO EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was appointed as Market Information Officer on 5-11-1966 in the Sub Office of the Tobacco Export Promotion Council (lst respondent) at Guntur on a salary of Rs. 210 for a period of one year and served continuously for 5 years. Respondents 2 to 4 are the Secretary, Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Tobacco Export Promotion Council (1st respondent). On 15-2-1971 the Administrative Committee passed a resolution authorising the 3rd respondent to take action against the appellant and the appellant's services were terminated with effect from 1-4-1971 in pursuance of a notice issued on 28-2-1971. The appellant filed O.P. No. 40 of 1971 against respondents 1 to 4 herein to permit him to file the suit in forma pauperis and for declaration that the order terminating his services is illegal inoperative. He also claimed damages against the respondents to an extent of Rs. 92,705 being the total amount of his salary for 12 years and also further damages of Rs. 100 against respondents 2 and 4. It is case that he served the 1st respondent-Council to the best of his ability and secured good name for the Council and this became an eyesore to respondents 2 and 4 and they prejudiced the mind of the 3rd respondent against the appellant and managed to get a resolution passed on 15-2-171 in pursuance of which his services were terminated. According to him there was no reasonable case for termination of his services and in view of Section 41 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, the respondents have no right to terminate the services of the appellant. Hence he was entitled for damages as prayed for.

(2.) The respondents filed a counter stating that respondents 3 and 4 are merely representatives of the 1st respondent, that the 4th respondent has no power except to preside over the meetings in the absence of the Chairman and that they cannot be impleaded in their individual capacity and they are not liable for any damages.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge after considering the rival contentions held that the petitioner, has no cause of action against respondents 2 to 4 as contemplated under Order 33, Rule 5, Cl (d), C.P.C. and consequently he directed the numbering of the pauper petition as a suit only against the 1st respondent and dismissed it against respondents 2 to 4. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the petitioner against this order of the Court below, and no appeal is preferred by the 1st respondent.