Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Singh Bapna vs Bombay Hospital Trust on 25 November, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34037
1 FA-875-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
FIRST APPEAL No. 875 of 2017
RAJENDRA SINGH BAPNA
Versus
BOMBAY HOSPITAL TRUST AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aviral Vikas Khare, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned senior counsel with Shri Mukul
Bhutda for respondents.
Reserved on 28.11.2024
Pronounced on 09.12.2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
This first appeal under section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908 is preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 19.07.2017 in regular civil suit no.3A/2016 by 2nd Additional Judge to the Court of Ist Additional District Judge, Indore whereby plaint has been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.
2. Facts in brief are that appellant/plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking following reliefs:
(a) The impugned order of termination may kindly be quashed and declared illegal, void-ab-initio and the plaintiff Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10-12-2024 15:43:14 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34037 2 FA-875-2017 be declared in service continuously from the date of his termination till his joining with all consequential benefits, consequently, it be decreed that the plaintiff is entitled to cost of the suit.
(b) and in alternate if this Hon'ble Court does not find suitable to reinstate the plaintiff in service then adequate compensation of Rs.1,21,17,312/- (Rupees One crore twenty one lakh seventeen thousand three hundred twelve only) with interest and in addition to the above normal rate of increment and bonus which the plaintiff is entitled along with the prevailing interest on the PF as applicable time to time, may kindly be awarded to the plaintiff; and
(c) the defendants may kindly be restrained from threatening and harming the plaintiff and
(d) any other relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the plaintiff and the suit be decreed accordingly.
3. The cause of action in the plaint was stated that the plaintiff was appointed on the post of Manager Pharmacy vide appointment letter dated 03.11.2003 effective from 22.11.2003. The term contained in clause 8 & 13 of the appoint letter (Annexure P/2) speaks about the modus operandi to be adopted if any breach occurs on the part of Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10-12-2024 15:43:14 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34037 3 FA-875-2017 employee in discharging his duties. The service of the plaintiff has been terminated in terms of clause-8 of the appointment letter vide order of termination dated 30.05.2016 (Annexure P/1) and salary of a month has been paid to the plaintiff. Apart from appointment letter/order (Annexure P/2) no rules and regulations were ever provided by the defendants. The service of the plaintiff/appellant has to be continued till the age of superannuation i.e. up to the age of 58 years. The order of termination (Annexure P/1) is without affording any opportunity of hearing, memo or show cause or conducting any domestic enquiry. The service of the plaintiff was extremely satisfactory and commendable and his service was confirmed vide order dated 10.05.2004 effective from 22.05.2004 with no change in the terms and conditions of the appointment (Annexure P/3). The service profile of plaintiff remains extremely satisfactory and commendable and plaintiff was getting the performance bonus and was assigned with higher responsibilities and was promoted to the post of senior manager (pharmacy) vide order dated 01.12.2014. While working on the post of senior manager (pharmacy he pointed out huge anomalies in the stock outs of medicines affecting the patient care and sales due to deliberate attempts from Mr.Manoj Singhal, Director Materials to affect the performance of plaintiff which was duly informed and some where the in-service employees of the defendant hospital were involved and a racket was running behind the purchase of medicines at higher rate than that is available in the market and the Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10-12-2024 15:43:14 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34037 4 FA-875-2017 difference of amount was accepted as bribe in cash or kind from suppliers by Mr.Sachin Airenkar, Assistant Manager Materials on behalf of Mr.Manoj Singhal, Director Materials for which documentary evidence with video recording were submitted by plaintiff and as a whistle blower the plaintiff has raised his voice towards such shortcomings through email and scanned copy of the same was attached with the mails. Plaintiff was harassed for blowing such whistle by the defendants by asking the plaintiff to give the charge to the subordinate Mr.Mukesh Nayak, Assistant Pharmacy officer and sit in the gallery. In spite of taking initiatives/action against the concerned employees of the management the defendants without issuing any show cause or memo or initiating domestic enquiry abruptly terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground of "your services are no longer required." with immediate effect from 30.05.2016 appending one month salary with the impugned termination order. This action was taken after his last mail dated 27.05.2016 sent to the defendants. The order of the termination reflects that it is founded upon mala fides and punitive and stigmatic and the termination of the confirmed employee is void ab initio as no opportunity of hearing, show cause or memo or domestic enquiry was initiated. Due to exposure of the misconduct and bad character of Mr.Manoj Singhal he attempted to murder the plaintiff and lodged a police complaint making a false allegation of suicide. The police also lodged a complaint to the police station Lasudiya, Indore on 30.05.2016 Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10-12-2024 15:43:14 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34037 5 FA-875-2017 (Annexure P/7). He served a notice through his counsel on the defendants (Annexure P/8 & P/9). The defendants replied through counsel Shri Girish Patwardhan and admitted the service profile and further admitted that no notice, memo or show cause was served on the plaintiff and urged that a major lapse was pointed out to your client which would have ruined his entire career if any action would have been taken on the basis of such lapse against our client. But taking a humanitarian view unconditional apology tendered by your client was accepted and he was permitted to continue. However, even after tendering apology your client continued to behave in most irresponsible manner unbecoming of position like Senior Manager (Pharmacy).
4. The impugned order of termination is illegal as it is founded on no evidence. The services were discontinued without constituting the grievance redressal committee and without refering the dispute to the grievance redressal committee and without making proper enquiry. His termination is void ab initio. As per the reply (Annexure P/11) to the notice of the plaintiff it has been replied that an order of warning was issued against him. Thereafter in no case second penalty or punishment could be awarded to an employee as the impugned order of termination amounts to double jeopardy. On exaggerated false perception the plaintiff was put to unnecessary harassment on the one pretext or the other for the act which has not been committed by him during the entire service tenure. Due to the personal grudges of Mr.Manoj singhal Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10-12-2024 15:43:14 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34037 6 FA-875-2017 Mr.Ramesh Bhattad, who are the directors of the defendant hospital, the plaintiff's image and career was maligned and a wrong perception was drawn against the plaintiff resulting into huge financial loss as no other institution will keep plaintiff in job. The defendants without any reason has stopped the increment and bonus from 2015 whereas some have been approved by the higher officials of defendants. In this connection a complaint was made by the plaintiff. Due to prejudice from the said complaint the plaintiff was removed from service. His charge was forcibly taken on 1st of June, 2016. The plaintiff has been put to mental agony, harassment, defamation and put to loss for the future prospects as the impugned order is stigmatic in nature resulting into huge financial loss to the plaintiff. The cause of action was stated to be arisen on 30.05.2016, 23.06.2016 and 31.05.2006 and compensation was bifurcated in the following heads:
(i) Compensation for the loss of his remaining service period of 7 years amounting to Rs.46,17,312/- on the basis of one month salary to the tune of Rs.54,968/- to be multiplied by 12 that comes to Rs.6,59,616/- for one year and Rs.46,17,312/- for 7 years.
(ii) The other head claimed was damages on account of mental agony, harassment, defamation and loss of profession amounting to Rs.75,00,000/-.
5. A list of documents was also annexed with the plaint in which a total 18 documents marked as Annexure P/1 to P/17 were filed Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10-12-2024 15:43:14 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34037 7 FA-875-2017 along with the plaint.
6. Counsel for the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that reliefs sought by the plaintiff are beyond the purview of trial court as the appointment of plaintiff was a pure contract of service between the plaintiff and defendant and as per term no.8 of the appointment letter it was mentioned that notice of 30 days is required after confirmation by either side for discontinuing services or payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice. No other reason may be assigned for such termination of service. The plaintiff with open eyes and mind has accepted the condition and by putting his signature has accepted the terms and conditions prescribed in the appointment letter. One month's salary in lieu of notice has been paid to him. There is no violation of terms of contract between the parties. The case of the plaintiff is covered by the exception provided under Specific Relief Act, 1963.
7. The application was contested by the appellant/plaintiff and vide order dated 19.07.2017 the trial court rejected the plaint.
8. This first appeal is preferred on the ground that trial court committed error in misapplying the provision of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC to the facts of the present case. The trial court committed error in ignoring the fact that the plaintiff has sought the relief in the plaint in the alternate and if the trial court does not find suitable to reinstate the plaintiff in service then adequate compensation with interest and in Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10-12-2024 15:43:14 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34037 8 FA-875-2017 addition to the above, normal rate of increment and bonus which the plaintiff is entitled along with the prevailing interest on the PF as applicable time to time, may kindly be awarded to the plaintiff and the appellant also sought relief in the plaint that any other relief which court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and the trial court also framed issues in this regard. The trial court committed error of law in holding that the relief claimed in the suit is barred by law. The trial court has not assigned any lawful reason and ground that how the relief claimed in suit is barred by law. The trial court failed to consider the relevant provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Indian Contract Act, 1872. The trial court has to read the entire plaint as a whole. The averments in the plaint are germane. The suit filed by the appellant discloses the cause of action and the relief sought therein was not all barred by any law. The trial court failed to consider that there cannot be any compartmentalization, dissection, segregation and inversions of the language in the plaint. It is not permissible to cull out sentence/relief of a passage and to read it out of the context in isolation. The pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its merit. The trial court failed to consider that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed after 8 months of filing the written statement and in the written statement no such ground was taken. The trial court failed to consider that the matter was fixed for plaintiff's evidence and the appellant/plaintiff has filed his examination in chief through affidavit under order 18 Rule 4 CPC. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10-12-2024 15:43:14 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34037 9 FA-875-2017 ground taken in the application under order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was mixed question of fact and law and such ground cannot be decided without taking evidence. The trial court failed to consider the alternate relief sought in the plaint is not barred in any law. The trial court committed error in holding that if the relief sought in suit is granted it will deem to implement the service rules which is prohibited by law. The trial court ignored the settled proposition that no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair-splitting technicalities.
9. Heard.
10. Counsel for the defendant/respondent opposed the first appeal and supported the order of the trial court.
11. For the disposal of this first appeal, following questions required to be determined.
(a) Whether trial court committed error in not considering the alternate relief while rejecting the plaint?
(b) Whether trial court committed error in recording the finding that suit is barred by law?
12. The bare perusal of the provisions under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC discloses that there is no stage mentioned when the application has to be filed. Accordingly, the application can be filed at any stage of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10-12-2024 15:43:14 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34037 10 FA-875-2017 case and argument advanced on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff has no relevance that it was filed after eight months of the filing of the written statement and no such defence was taken in the written statement.
13. Before adverting to the controversy, this Court is referring the principle applicable in dealing with the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Relevant para - 28 of Ramisetty Venkatana and another vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 521 is being reproduced as below :-
"we are of the opinion that the plaint ought to have been rejected in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule XI(a) and (d) of CPC being vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by limitation. By clever drafting and not asking any relief with respect to partition deed dated 11.03.1953, the plaintiffs have tried to circumvent the provision of limitation act and have tried to maintain the suit which is nothing but abuse of process of court and the law."
13.1 Relevant para - 24.4 of Dahi Ben vs. Arvind Bhai reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366 is being reproduced as below :-
"24.4. If, however, by clever drafting of the plaint, it has created the illusion of a cause of action, this Court in Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal [Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174 10 : (2017) 5 SCC (Civ) 602] held that it should be nipped in the bud, so that bogus litigation will end at the earliest stage. The Court must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression, and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious, and Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10-12-2024 15:43:14 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34037 11 FA-875-2017 an abuse of the process of the court."
13.2 Relevant para - 5 of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467 is being reproduced as below :-
"And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10, CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men, (Cr. XI) and must be triggered against them."
13.3 Relevant para - 20 of Sopan Shukhdeo vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner reported in (2004) 3 SCC 137 is being reproduced as below :-
"20. There is distinction between "material facts" and "particulars". The words "material facts" show that the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated. Omission of a 11 single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement or plaint becomes bad. The distinction which has been made between "material facts" and "particulars" was brought by Scott, L.J. in Bruce v. Odhams Press Ltd. [(1936) 1 KB 697 : (1936) 1 All ER 287 (CA)] in the following passage : (All ER p. 294) "The cardinal provision in Rule 4 is that the statement of claim must state the material facts. The word 'material' means necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action; and if any one 'material' Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10-12-2024 15:43:14 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34037 12 FA-875-2017 statement is omitted, the statement of claim is bad; it is 'demurrable' in the old phraseology, and in the new is liable to be 'struck out' under R.S.C. Order 25 Rule 4 (see Philipps v. Philipps [(1878) 4 QBD 127] ); or 'a further and better statement of claim' may be ordered under Rule 7.
The function of 'particulars' under Rule 6 is quite different. They are not to be used in order to fill material gaps in a demurrable statement of claim -- gaps which ought to have been filled by appropriate statements of the various material facts which together constitute the plaintiff's cause of action. The use of particulars is intended to meet a further and quite separate requirement of pleading, imposed in fairness and justice to the defendant. Their function is to fill in the picture of the plaintiff's cause of action with information sufficiently detailed to put the defendant on his 12 guard as to the case he had to meet and to enable him to prepare for trial."
The dictum of Scott, L.J. in Bruce case [(1936) 1 KB 697 : (1936) 1 All ER 287 (CA)] has been quoted with approval by this Court in Samant N. Balkrishna v. George Fernandez [(1969) 3 SCC 238] and the distinction between "material facts" and "particulars" was brought out in the following terms : (SCC p. 250, para 29) "The word 'material' shows that the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated. Omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of claim becomes bad. The function of particulars is to present as full a picture of the cause of action with such further information in detail as to make the opposite party understand the case he will have to meet."
Rule 11 of Order 7 lays down an independent remedy made available to the defendant to challenge the maintainability of the suit itself, irrespective of his right to contest the same on merits. The law ostensibly does Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10-12-2024 15:43:14 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34037 13 FA-875-2017 not contemplate at any stage when the objections can be raised, and also does not say in express terms about the filing of a written statement. Instead, the word "shall" is used, clearly implying thereby that it casts a duty on the court to perform its obligations in rejecting the plaint when the same is hit by any of the infirmities provided in the four clauses of Rule 11, even without intervention of the defendant. In any event, rejection of the plaint under Rule 11 does 13 not preclude the plaintiffs from presenting a fresh plaint in terms of Rule 13."
13.4 Relevant para - 16 of ITC vs. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1998 SC 634 that has been referred in para-7 of K. Akbar Ali vs. K. Umar Khan and others reported in (2021) 14 SCC 51 is being reproduced as below :-
"7. In any case, an application under Order 7 Rule 11CPC for rejection of the plaint requires a meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole. As held by this Court in ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal [ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70 : AIR 1998 SC 634] , clever drafting creating illusions of cause of action are not permitted in law and a clear right to sue should be shown in the plaint. Similarly the Court must see that the bar in law of the suit is not camouflaged by devious and clever drafting of the plaint. Moreover, the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 are not exhaustive and the Court has the inherent power to see that frivolous or vexatious litigations are not allowed to consume the time of the Court."
14. Now we are considering the averments of the plaint and the contents of the documents filed along with the plaint. The cause of action is in respect of service of contract (Annexure P/2) and term no.8 Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10-12-2024 15:43:14 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34037 14 FA-875-2017 & 13 as referred in the plaint are being reproduced below:
8. A notice of 30 days is required after confirmation by either side for discontinuing the service or payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice. No reason may be assigned for such termination of service.
13. We shall be at liberty and entitled to dispense with your service without any notice or compensation, if any breach occurs on your part of any of the terms and conditions contained herein and the rules and regulations of the Hospital or for any misconduct.
15. Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has argued referring to Intertek India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Priyanka Mohan - 2019 SCC OnLine Del. 10284, M/s Pearlite Liners Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manorama Sirsi - AIR 2004 SC 1373, Birla Jute Industries Ltd., Chanderia and another vs. Ramesh Chandra - 2010 (1) MPLJ 448 & Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others - (2004) 3 SCC 137 that meaningful reading of plaint averments as a whole does not put a bar to the reliefs claimed by the appellant/plaintiff in spite of the fact that the relation between the parties is based on a contract. He argued that in Pearlte Liners Ltd (supra) no prayer for damages for breach of contract was made in the suit whereas in the present matter a damage has been claimed. It is also argue that if he is left remediless then it will set a wrong precedence and will provide a weapon in the hands of private employers that they can fire their employees at their whims.
16. The relevant para nos.10 to 14 of Intertek India Pvt. Ltd.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10-12-2024 15:43:14NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34037 15 FA-875-2017 (supra) are being reproduced as under:
10. I am unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent had filed the subject Suit claiming that termination is illegal. In paragraph 1 of the plaint respondent had described herself as an ex-employee which indicates that respondent had accepted that she is no longer in services. The respondent throughout the plaint has made averment that her services were terminated illegally. Reference in particular may be had to paragraphs 1, 24 and 27 where she has categorically stated that the notice of termination is illegal.
11. No doubt, the expression 'null and void' would imply non-
est, however, if prayer (a) were to be interpreted in the manner in which learned counsel for the petitioner contends, the same would imply that the termination is non est and respondent/plaintiff continues in services, but that is not what the Respondents seeks.
12. A meaningful reading of the Plaint shows that the respondent has not sought any re-instatement in service but had claimed that the termination is illegal and hence null and void.
13. Learned counsel for the respondent before the trial court categorically stated that the respondent did not seek any re- instatement.
14. Even if prayer (a), as framed, could not be granted, respondent could claim damages etc. for wrongful termination in case respondent is able to establish that the termination is illegal or contrary to any settled principles and that is what the respondent has sought in prayers (b) to (d).
17. Before considering Intertek India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Court is referring to para-12 of S.S. Shetty vs. Bharat Nidhi Ltd. - AIR 1958 SC 12 which is reproduced as under:
12. The position- as it obtains in the ordinary law of master and servant is quite clear. The master who wrongfully Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10-12-2024 15:43:14 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34037 16 FA-875-2017 dismisses his servant is bound to pay him such damages as will compensate him for the wrong that he has sustained. "They are to be assessed by reference to the amount earned in the service wrongfully terminated and the time likely to elapse before the servant obtains another post for which he is fitted. If the contract expressly provides that it is terminable upon, e.g., a month's notice, the damages will ordinarily be a month's wages.................. No compensation can be claimed in respect of the injury done to the servant's feelings by the circumstances of his dismissal, nor in respect of extra difficulty of finding work resulting from those circumstances. A servant who has been wrongfully dismissed must use diligence to seek another employment, and the fact that he has been offered a suitable post may be taken into account in assessing the damages."
(Chitty on Contracts, 21st Ed., Vol. (2), p. 559 para. 1040).
18. As per S.S. Shetty (supra) if contract expressly provides that it is terminable upon a month's notice, the damages will ordinarily be a month's wages ........... No compensation can be claimed in respect of the injury done to the servant's feelings by the circumstances of his dismissal, nor in respect of extra difficulty of finding work resulting from those circumstances. In this case as per term no.8 of service of contract (Annexure P/2) as reproduced in para-13 of the judgment 30 days' notice was required by either side for discontinuing the service or payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice. No reason was required for such termination of service and one month's salary was paid to the plaintiff/appellant along with the termination notice. The amount paid in lieu of service of notice was representing the damages that may have been claimed by the appellant/plaintiff. In Intertek India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) there was no such stipulation that service may be terminated Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10-12-2024 15:43:14 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34037 17 FA-875-2017 giving a notice of a certain period. Thus, the reliance placed on the case of Intertek India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) does not help the appellant/plaintiff.
19. The term no.8 of the service of contract (Annexure P/2) does not render the service of contract for a fix term. Accordingly, the claim for damages cannot be extended for loss of his remaining service period of 7 years amounting to Rs.46,17,312/- on the basis of one month's salary to the tune of Rs.54,968/- to be multiplied by 12 and the damages on account of mental agony, harassment, defamation and loss of profession amounting to Rs.75 lakhs also cannot be claimed when the service is terminable on 30 days notice or payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice.
20. Plaintiff/appellant has mentioned in para-3.16 of the grounds of appeal the case of Akhilesh Kumar Verma vs. M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. and others pronounced by the High Court of Delhi but the year of judgment or citation has not been provided. One such judgment is available as (2014) 09 DEL CK 0244 but that Division Bench judgment also does not mention that contract of service was terminable on serving notice of 30 days or payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice. Accordingly, that judgment does not help the plaintiff/appellant.
21. In the light of S.S. Shetty (supra), trial court did not commit error of law in interpreting the case laws of M/s Pearlite Liners Pvt. Ltd. (supra) a n d Birla Jute Industries Ltd. (supra). Meaningful reading of plaint as a whole as per Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others (supra), the Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10-12-2024 15:43:14 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34037 18 FA-875-2017 plaint does not discloses a cause of action even for the alternate relief of damages because he has been paid one month's salary that he could have claimed. Accordingly, the answer to the questions (a) & (b) goes against the plaintiff/appellant and the trial court committed no error in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Hence, this appeal is dismissed.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own cost.
(GAJENDRA SINGH) JUDGE hk/ Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10-12-2024 15:43:14