MALABAR FOREST AND RUBBER COMPANY LIMITED Vs. DHMACLEOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has instituted this suit for recovery of damages in respect of wrongful dismissal. The defendant company justifies its action by alleging that the plaintiff was incompetent and grossly negligent in the discharge of his duties. The trial Court has decided against the plaintiff finding that the dismissal was justified, but on appeal, the decision of the Court of the first Instance was reversed by the District Judge.

(2.) The lower appellate Court in effect finds that the plaintiff was incompetent, in regard to work that pertained to timber but is of the opinion that that circumstance does not entitle the defendant company to dismiss the plaintiff. Is this position correct ? Before the employment in question, the plaintiff had been working at Aralam. Regarding his duties at that place, he says In Aralam, it was all timber and no tea." As the conditions at Aralam were not to his liking, he sought employment at Kottanad under the defendant company. I may observe that the plaintiff some years previously had an interest in this very Kottanad Estate and having become greatly indebted got it sold and the defendant company became the purchaser. The plaintiff's designation was "Superintendent of the Kottanad Estates." What then were his duties? Part of his work related to tea. The plaintiff having said this, deposes next: Timber was the other source of income in Kottanad. I was the sole Superintendent and I had also to get the timber work done. I told Mr. Chari that there was a lot of timber on the estate.

(3.) Mr. Chari referred to Mr. Raghavachari who negotiated the purchase of the Kottanad Estate for the defendant company. Let me now turn to another admission of the plaintiff. I do not claim to be a timber expert. I know nothing practically about timber.