DAINIK BHASKAR Vs. DEEPAK RAJ AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 4.2.2008.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff -respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that termination letter dated 7.10.2003 issued by the appellant be declared null and void. He pleaded that he was appointed as Marketing Executive with the appellant and was placed on probation for a period of six months vide appointment letter dated 19.11.2002 at a monthly salary of Rs. 3500/ -. After having successfully completed the probation he was granted an increment of Rs. 290/ - but his services were terminated wrongly without issuance of notice and without complying with the terms of the appointment letter according to which one month's notice was a pre -requisite for resorting to such an action. As a consequential relief he prayed for permanent injunction and also for grant of mandatory injunction.

(3.) THE learned Trial Court while determining the controversy concluded that the termination order Ex P2 is illegal, null and void but declined to grant consequential relief of reinstatement on the ground that it was specifically barred under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act. However, the learned Trial Court observed further that terms of the appointment required one month's notice as a pre -requisite for passing the order of termination and granted the plaintiff one month salary in lieu thereof. The suit was accordingly decreed partially in the aforesaid terms. Plaintiff -respondent dis -satisfied with the order filed the appeal before the First Appellate Court who upset the findings of the learned Trial Court, to hold that once the conclusion had been arrived at that the termination order was bad then as a corollary to it the consequential benefits had to be granted to the plaintiff -respondent.