DON BOSCO SCHOOL Vs. LUTAN THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 1st of October, 2005 and 27th October, 2005 respectively passed by learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Howrah in Title Appeal No.222 of 2002 confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.09.2002 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Howrah in Title Suit No.43 of 2002.

(2.) THIS Second Appeal has a long history which may be summarized as follows:- List of dates 11.2.1986 : The service of the plaintiff /Respondent was terminated. 27.5.1986 : The plaintiff /Respondent filed the suit being Title Suit No.137 of 1986 in the Court of the learned Munsif (First Court) at Howrah for declaration and permanent injunction; 28.8.1989 : Learned Munsif (First Court), Howrah, dismissed the Title Suit No.137 of 1986; 11.9.1989 : Appeal filed against the order of dismissal dated 28.8.1989 being Title Appeal No.221 of 1989 in the Court of the Learned District Judge, Howrah. 28.2.1990 : The plaintiff /Respondent reached the age of retirement. 25.8.1990 : The learned Additional District Judge, Third Court, Howrah, remanded the suit by setting aside the order passed by learned First Munsif in Title Suit No.137 of 1986. 30.11.1990 : The defendant /appellant filed the Second Appeal (subsequently renumbered as S.A. No.663 of 1993) against the judgment and order dated 25.8.1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Howrah. 19.3.1997 : Second Appeal No.663 of 1993 was dismissed by His Lordship the Honble Justice D. P. Sarkar, by affirming the order of remand passed by the learned Court below. 21.1.1999 : The application for amendment of the Plaint was filed by the plaintiff/respondent. 9.2.1999 : The application for amendment of the plaint was allowed. 30.6.1999 : The learned Munsif returned the plaint to be presented before the Appropriate Court for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. 20.7.2000 : Misc. Appeal No.207 of 1999 filed by the plaintiff/respondent against the order dated 30.06.1999 was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Third Court at Howrah. 26.3.2002 : The revisional application being C.O. No.3085 of 2000 preferred by the plaintiff/respondent against the order dated 20.7.2000 was disposed of by Honble Justice Asit Kumar Bisi by directing the Learned District Judge, Howrah, to transfer the suit to the Appropriate Court having proper jurisdiction.

(3.) THE terms and conditions of said agreement conferred uncontrolled and unfettered authority upon the Principal of the Managing Committee of the school over the service of plaintiff teacher. As the plaintiff was in dire necessity of said job he was compelled to sign said agreement. THE service of the plaintiff in said school was duly approved by the Education Directorate, Government of West Bengal and plaintiff was allowed to draw dearness allowance admissible as per law. After completion of 25 years of satisfactory service, plaintiff was awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- by the School authority as a token of good service. Said school was a higher secondary school recognized as Anglo Indian School by the Education Department, Government of West Bengal and is governed by code of regulations for European now Anglo Indian School in Bengal (now the West Bengal), 1929. THE plaintiff formed an association of the teaching and non-teaching staff of said school which was duly registered on 15.01.1986. THE plaintiff as secretary of said association pressed a charter of demand before the authority regarding the regulation of service and benefits to be given to the members of the association. On 12.2.86 the plaintiff was served with a notice dated 11.2.86 with a cheque of Rs.4445/- informing that the Managing Committee terminated the service of the plaintiff on and from 11.2.86 and that said cheque was for the payment of salary of the plaintiff for three months in lieu of notice. Said notice of termination was illegal and issued in gross violation of natural justice and accordingly the plaintiff prayed for declaring that such notice was bad in law and that plaintiff continued to be a permanent assistant teacher in said school and was entitled to get all the reliefs.