APARNA KUMAR DHARGUPTA Vs. UNITED INDUSTRIAL BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff was appointed by the defendant -Bank in or about 1949 as a Senior Assistant. In his application dated 20th June, 1944, the plaintiff had given his age as 'about 30 years'. The letter of appointment contained the following terms: - - Mr. Aparna Dhar Gupta Dated214 -A, Kali Charan 23rd July,Ghose Road, Dum Dum, 1949Calcutta.Dear Sir, With reference to your application and interview with the undersigned, you are hereby offered the post of a senior assistant at the Bank on a salary of Rs. 175 per mensem with effect from Saturday, the 23rd July, 1949. Yours faithfully, Sd/ - Illegible Director -in -Charge.

(2.) THE plaintiff accepted the said offer. Subsequently he was promoted to the position of a Branch Manager and in June, 1960, he was posted in the Ballygunge Branch of the defendant -Bank.

(3.) ON 10th July, 1968, the plaintiff instituted the present suit. In the plaint the plaintiff alleged that he was a 'workman' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and the terms and conditions of his service were governed by the 'Shastri award' as modified on 31st March, 1969 and by the 'Desai award'. According to the plaintiff, the retiring age of the employees of the defendant -Bank was 60 years, but the plaintiff was wrongfully forced to retire at the age of 53 only. The notice of termination was illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. The defendant contested this suit. The allegations in the written statement were that the plaintiff was not a 'workman' and the 'Shastri award' or the 'Desai award' had nothing to do with the plaintiff's service. There was an express or implied term that the plaintiff would retire at the age of 55, In June, 1965, the plaintiff was 56 years old according to plaintiff's application dated 20 -6 -1944. According to his age given in the Calcutta Gazette dated 23 -5 -1923 at the time of passing matriculation examination, the plaintiff was 58 years old in June, 1965. Moreover, his efficiency was impaired due to his age and the Board took decision to retire the plaintiff. The plaintiff had accepted the notice period salary and all other benefits due up to the date of termination of his service in full and final satisfaction of all his claims against the defendant by waiving all his other alleged rights. The defendant was not obliged to observe the principles of natural justice nor the notice was illegal or arbitrary. The following issues were raised at the time of the trial: ISSUES 1. Was the plaintiff at any time a workman who could be governed by the Shastri or Desai award as alleged in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the plaint? 2. (a) Was the plaintiff retired arbitrarily and illegally by a letter dated 7 -6 -1965 as alleged in paragraph 15 of the plaint? (b) What was his age on 7 -6 -1965?3. Was it an express or implied condition of service of the plaintiff that he was to retire at the age of 55 years unless the Board of Directors of the defendant in their absolute discretion otherwise permits as alleged in paragraph 7 of the written statement? 4. (a) Did the plaintiff accept his retirement unconditionally? (b) Did the plaintiff receive and accept the sums of Rs. 490, Rs. 1,470 and Rs. 3,100.59 unconditionally and in full and final settlement of all his claims and has waived all his alleged rights as alleged in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the written statement ?5. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?