ARJUN KUMHAR Vs. TATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY, DIRECTOR OF COLLIERIES, TATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LIMITED (TISCO LTD.) AND AGENT, DIGWADIH COLLIERY, OF TATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LIMITED (TISCO)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal by the plaintiff is against the judgment and decree of reversal.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit praying decree for declaration that the defendant No. 1 who is the second son -in -law is entitled to get service as his dependent. The petitioners case is that he was an employee in the Digwadih Colliery in TISCO and had put in 28 years of service. He took voluntary retirement in the year 1976. The plaintiff has only two daughters and has no son. The elder son -in -law, Subodh Kumbhkar, is an employee of B.C.C.L. and second daughter is married to Hiru Kumbhkar. The second son -in -law Hiru Kumbhkar is unemployed. In the service rule one dependent of a person, who takes voluntary retirement, is entitled for employment in the Company. When the plaintiff took voluntary retirement in 1976, his two daughters were minor and he had no other dependent. In the year 1988 the plaintiff approached the defendant and requested them to provide employment to his eldest son -in -law Subodh Kumbhkar in place of the plaintiff, but he was informed that one Kriti Kumbhkar, defendant No. 4 has already secured a job at Digwadih Colliery as far back as on 22.01.1977 in place of the plaintiff claiming himself as his adopted son and dependent. The plaintiff lodged a complaint before the defendant No. 3, denying any such relationship. Thereafter the said Kirti Kumbhkar was dismissed from service. The said Kirti Kumbhkar filed Title Suit No. 1 of 1991 against the order of his dismissal wherein he had prayed for declaration that he was adopted son of the plaintiff and his dismissal was illegal and without jurisdiction. During the pendency of the said Title Suit No. 1 of 1991 the General Manager allegedly assured him to consider his grievance and the said Kirti Kumbhkar withdrew the suit on 05.12.1994. Though defendant No. 4 was given fresh employment, but the plaintiffs son -in -law was not given any employment. Hence the suit.

(3.) ON the basis of the said pleadings, several issues were framed by learned Trial Court. While deciding Issues No. 5 and 6, learned Trial Court held that when the defendant No. 4 was reemployed after the withdrawal of Title Suit No. 1 of 1991, it was a fresh employment and that the effect of withdrawal of the suit should be to the benefit of the plaintiff, who had objected to the employment of the said proforma defendant Kirti Kumbhkar. On that reasoning, learned Trial Court decided the said issue in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit declaring that his second son -in -law Hiru Kumbhkar is entitled to get employment in the respondent -Company. The said defendant No. 1 -TISCO filed appeal in the Court of District Judge, Dhanbad which was registered as Title Appeal No. 44 of 2000. The said appeal was finally heard by learned Additional District Judge VIII, Dhanbad. In view of the ground taken in the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court thoroughly discussed the facts, evidences and material on record and after due appraisal and consideration thereof came to the finding that at the time of the plaintiffs retirement in the year 1976, Hiru Kumbhkar was not his son -in -law and who could have given job in place of the plaintiff. In view of the provisions of the service rules, said Hiru Kumbhkar was not the dependent of the plaintiff at the relevant time and the relief prays for by him cannot be granted to the plaintiff. Learned Lower Appellate Court, thus, found the findings of the Trial Court erroneous and perverse and set aside the judgment and decree of learned Trial Court and dismissed the suit.