CHITAVALSAH JUTE MILLS Vs. B V RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Bagadi Vykunta Rao was appointed by Willard India Limited, Calcutta as a Mechanical Maintenance Overseer on 8/11/1971 on a salary of Rs. 725.00 per month. The Chittivasa Jute Mills, which forms a division of Willard India Limited, confirmed his services on 26/06/1972 with effect from 1/04/1972 fixing his salary at Rs. 765.00 per month. Later on, Jute mills granted ad hoc increments to the Mechanical Maintenance Overseer. By the end of 1979, his salary was fixed at Rs. 1500.00 per month. Alleging that his services were wrongly terminated by issuing a memo dated 9/02/1983 with immediate effect offering one months salary in lieu of notice and that no explanation was called for from him and no enquiry was conducted, he filed O.S. No. 299 of 1983 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking the reliefs of reinstatement in service, damages or compensation of Rs. 3,00,000.00 and some others reliefs. He shall hereinafter be referred to as the employee.

(2.) Chittivalasa Jute Mills, which is the defendant in the suit, contested the suit on the grounds that the employees performance was found to be most unsatisfactory and his behaviour was insolent; that he was warned and cautioned verbally many times by the Chief Mill Manager; that in view of his persistent indifference towards his work, he was not sanctioned any increment in 1981; that the defendant never guaranteed any fixed tenure to the plaintiff; that the services of the employee were terminated in exercise of the unrestricted right to repudiate the contract of service and terminate the services of an employee and that the suit is barred under Sections 14 and 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The defendant which is Chittivalasa Jute Mills will hereinafter be referred to as the Company.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge. Visakhapatnam who tried the suit held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit; that Ex. A-1 appointment orders does not contain any specific condition that the services of the employee could be terminated at any time with one months notice; that the services of the plaintiff were confirmed soon after the probation period was over; that no other document has been filed by the defendant company to support the conclusion arrived at by the management as mentioned Ex. A-3; that from the evidence of P.W. 1 it is quite clear that there is no specific stipulation in writing about the mode of termination of services of an employee; that there were no charge memos issued to the employee prior to Ex. A-3; that in the absence of stipulation in Ex. A-1 or A-2 relating to the mode of termination of services, the action of the defendant (Company) terminating the services of the plaintiff after tendering one months pay in lieu of notice is not at all valid in law; that the case on hand will not come either under Art. 311 of the Constitution or under Industrial Disputes Act and that, therefore, the question of reinstatement will not arise and that because of Section 42 and 21(b) of Specific Relief Act, it is not permissible to the Civil Court to grant declaration to the employee that he continues to be in service. While holding that the termination of service of the plaintiff under Ex. A-3 cannot be said to be ab initio void, the learned Subordinate Judge. Visakhapatnam held that yet it can be said that it is wrongful dismissal of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff is not entitled to reinstatement, but he is entitled only for damages in the alternative. The learned Sub ordinate Judge fixed the quantum of damages at Rs. 54,000.00 together with interest at 12% per annum from the date suit till the date of payment in addition to the amount of Rs. 4,603-64 ps. which was liable to paid to the employee as per Ex. B-1.