Karnataka High Court
B K Kumar vs M/S Ingersoll-Rand (India) Ltd on 13 January, 2023
Author: V. Srishananda
Bench: V. Srishananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
R.F.A. NO.1804/2006(DEC)
BETWEEN
B K KUMAR
S/O LATE B S KESHAVA MURTHY
AGED 57 YEARS
R/A NO.19, GARUDADRI
II CROSS, WIDIA LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 040
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI K.NATARAJ BABA FOR
SRI SHANMUKHAPPA ADVOCATES)
AND
M/S INGERSOLL-RAND (INDIA) LTD.
PHASE-I, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA
BANGALORE-560 058
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND
MANAGING DIRECTOR
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI AKSHAY.B.M, FOR VEEKSHA LAW, ADVOCATES)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DT.29.05.2006
PASSED IN O.S.NO.1441/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV
ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH.NO.6)
DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION.
2
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 25.11.2022, COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
1. The Appeal on hand is directed against the judgment and decree passed in OS No.1441/1999 dated 29.5.2006 on the file of the XXIV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City, whereby, the suit of the plaintiff came to be dismissed with costs.
2. The parties are referred to as Plaintiff and defendant for the sake of convenience, as per their original rankings before the Trial Court.
3. Factual matrix of the case in brief on hand are as under:
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that findings of the Enquiry Officer holding that plaintiff is guilty of the charge of negligence and finding of the Enquiry Officer is bad and illegal and further sought for declaration that dismissal of 3 the plaintiff from the services of the defendant Company is bad and illegal and sought for setting aside the order of dismissal dated 26.12.1998 by the defendant Company and direct the defendant Company to reinstate the plaintiff into the services of the defendant-Company.
4. In the plaint, it is contended that defendant is a Multinational Company incorporated under the Companies Act and it has two manufacturing units one at Bengaluru and another at Ahmadabad. Defendant- Company had sales branches all over India. Plaintiff joined the defendant Company on 16.1.1978 as Stores incharge and he is discharging his work to the best of his ability and to the satisfaction of the official superiors. Considering his meritorious and honest service, defendant promoted the plaintiff as Stores Officer in the year 1983-84 and thereafter, promoted as Superintendent in the year 1995. As a Superintendent, the plaintiff was placed in charge of Shipping and Warehouse Department as head of the department in Bengaluru Unit. Plaintiff had unblemished 4 career. Defendant used to engage the services of private transport operators for transporting the machineries and spare parts manufactured by the defendant - Company at Bengaluru to other places across the country and overseas as well. The transporters so engaged by the defendant - Company for shipment of machinery and spare parts used to submit transportation charges bills to the defendant - Company and the same needs to be processed after scrutinizing the relevant details. The plaintiff being the head of Shipping and Warehouse Department, he was being assisted by his subordinate staff (in all 8 in number).
5. It is further contended that one Mr. M.S. Gundu, who was working as Shipping in charge and was processing and scrutinizing the transportation bills received from the transporters. It was the primary and foremost duty and responsibility of Mr.Gundu is to process, scrutinise transportation bills and place them before the plaintiff for approval. Being the head of Shipping and Warehousing Department, the plaintiff had to devote his 5 attention to various items of work and was not in a position to personally re-scrutinise each and every transport bill.
6. Having regard to the nature of work, the plaintiff has to repose confidence in his subordinates to approve the bills sent for payment.
7. When the matter stood thus, audit of the accounts of the Shipping and Warehousing Department was carried out by the internal auditor in the year 1998 and in such audit, it is noticed that payment made to M/s.Gemini Cargo Movers, Bengaluru for transportation of machinery and spare parts, did not tally the details as to the lorry receipt number, invoice number, amount paid etc., Out of nine cases, double payment was noticed by the auditor and in 4 cases of double payments were attributed to the approval given by the plaintiff. Remaining five bills were approved by other officers. Total amount of the said four bills approved by the plaintiff, where double payment has occurred which is attributed to the plaintiff 6 amounted to Rs.81,000/-. On receipt of the report by the Internal Auditor, defendant - Company, was constrained to issue a charge sheet to the plaintiff on 14.04.1998 calling upon him to furnish his explanation within 48 hours. Plaintiff was also kept under suspension pending enquiry. Plaintiff immediately replied to the charge sheet on 17.4.1998 denying the charges and took a positive stand that it is Mr. M.S.Gundu - who alone was responsible for double payment and pleaded that he is no way concerned with the double payment and in the usual course of work, he has approved the bills submitted by Mr.M.S.Gundu and therefore, he be exonerated from the charge.
8. Despite such explanation, the defendant proceeded with the enquiry and appointed Mr.Jinraj Ajri a Practicing Advocate as Enquiry Officer to conduct domestic enquiry in respect of the charge sheet dated 14.04.1998. After following necessary formalities, the enquiry ended and the charges were said to be proved and plaintiff 7 received an order on 26.12.1998 dismissing the plaintiff from the services.
9. Plaintiff further contended that enquiry is not proper and the enquiry is not in conformity with the prescribed rules and regulations and therefore, the dismissal order is bad in law and sought for decreeing the suit.
10. Upon service of suit summons, defendant entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement. In the written statement, it is contended that a sum of Rs.81,000/- was attributable to plaintiff 's inaction / negligence whereby double payment has been made in favour of the transporter M/s.Gemini Cargo Movers. Details of the charges were also furnished in the written statement as under:
a) Theft, Fraud, mis-appropriation of Company's property/Money or dishonesty in connection with or in respect of the Company's business.
(b) Negligence of work
8
(c) Any other Act or acts of Omissions or
Commissions not mentioned above.
(d) Violation of Clause I of the Company's
letter dated 26.06.1978 which reads as follows:-
"During your employment with the company, you shall carry out your duties diligently and you will try your best to promote the interest of the Company and its business"
11. Defendant however, pleaded that pending domestic enquiry, plaintiff was kept under suspension and necessary opportunity was given to file explanation and since the explanation was not satisfactory, domestic enquiry was ordered. It is also contended that the plaintiff was permitted to have an assistance of a co-employee and enquiry commenced on 27.04.1998 and got completed on 31.07.1998. In the enquiry, sufficient opportunity was granted to the plaintiff to prove his innocence about the charges and based on the material placed before the Enquiry commission, charges leveled against the plaintiff stands proved and therefore, the defendant was required 9 to terminate the services of the plaintiff as per the order dated 26.12.1998 and sought for dismissal of the suit.
12. Based on the rival contentions, the Trial Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the suit of this nature is barred from the jurisdiction of Civil Courts as contended by defendant in para-3 of his written statement ?
2. Does plaintiff prove, the Enquiry Office denied him proper opportunity to defend himself and violated the principles of natural justice and thereby the finding given by him is null and void ?
3. If so, is plaintiff entitled for the declaratory reliefs and consequential relief as sought for ?
4. What decree or order ?"
13. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff got examined himself as PW-1 and relied on 29 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P29 comprising of Ex.P1-Chargesheet; Ex.P.2- Reply to 10 charge sheet; Ex.P3-Intimate of appointment of E.O, Ex.P.4- Letter dated 27.04.1998; Ex.P.5- Office copy of letter 3.6.98, 8.6.98; Exs.P.7 and 8 and P.9-Letters of the company 16.10.98 and reply; Ex.P10-Show cause Notice; Ex.P.11-Copy of the letter dated 17.11.98; Ex.P.12-Order of dismissal dated 26.12.1998; Ex.P.13-Letter of Announcement dated 31.03.1995; Ex.P.14 to P.17-Letter dated 12.07.90, 21.07.93, 03.09.93, 29.03.91; Ex.P.18- Letter of announcement dated 31.1.84; Ex.P.19-Copy of enquiry proceedings held on 27.04.98; Ex.P.20-Statement given by K.Bharathish dated 08.06.98; Ex.P.21-Statement given by Sri K.R.Shenoy dt.6.7.98; Ex.P.22-Statement given by Sri Sathendra Shenoy; Ex.P.23-Statement of Sri B.K.Kumar, dated 31.7.98; Ex.P.24-Arguments in respect of B.K.Kumar dt.5.8.98; Ex.P.25-Copy of Written arguments filed by B.K.Kumar; Ex.P.26-Copy of P.F.Form No.19; Ex.P.27-Copy of letter 28.5.99; Ex.P.28- Confidential letter dated 01.04.98; Ex.P.28(a) and (b) - Statements of payment; Ex.P.29-Notice of Enquiry. 11
14. On behalf of the defendant, Sri A.G. Shivashankar an employee of the defendant - Company was examined as DW-1 and he relied on one document which is exhibited and marked as Ex.D1, which is the enquiry proceedings filed.
15. On conclusion of the recording of the evidence, the learned Trial Judge heard the parties in detail and after critically analyzing the materials placed on record dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs.
16. Being aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff has preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:
The impugned judgment and decree is not maintainable either in law or on facts and hence the same is liable to be set aside.
The learned judge has failed to properly appreciate the evidence and documents on record in its correct perspective.
The learned Trial Judge has ignored the fact that out of the 9 cases of double payment noticed by the Auditor, 4 cases of double payment were 12 attributed to the approval given by the Appellant. However the Respondent company did not take similar action against other officers who had approved the other five bills relating to double payment and that this action of the Respondent is highly discriminatory.
The Trial court erred in dismissing the suit of the Plaintiff in coming to the conclusion that there was no breach of rules and principles of natural justice and that the respondent company was justified in terminating the service of the plaintiff on the ground of loss of confidence and also negligence.
The Trial Court failed to take into consideration the fact that one Mr. M.S.Gundu was working under the Appellant as Shipping Incharge and he was incharge of processing and scrutinizing the transporters bills. It is only after his scrutiny and the remarks that those bills were to be sent through the Appellant to the Accounts Department for making payments. Hence no malafide could be attributed to the Appellant.
The Trial Court has not taken into consideration the aspect that the entire enquiry is vitiated on account of the fact that the Enquiry Officer was attached to the office of the Legal Advisors of the Respondent company resulting in bias.13
The Trial Court has ignored the admission of DW- 1 to the effect that Ex.P3 was issued by him and that it is a letter addressed to Sri Jinaraj Ajari the Enquiry Officer, at the address of BB Associates, Bangalore, who are the Advocates for the Respondent company, thereby resulting in bias to the Appellant.
The Appellant submits that his representation for availing of the services of an Advocate to assist him in the enquiry as complicated questions of law and facts were involved and voluminous documents were to be verified and defence put up against the charge, which was rejected by the Enquiry Officer. Since no employee of the Respondent company was conversant with the procedure of conducting domestic enquiry, and no co-employee was ready to assist the appellant as they were not ready to incur the wrath of the management as they would be subjected to harassment if they came forward to assist the Appellant. This resulted in denial of opportunity to the appellant who could not effectively defend himself against the charges resulting in violation of principles of natural justice.
The learned Trial Judge ought to have held that since admittedly the Respondent company subsequently recovered the amount from the Transporter, the order of dismissal from service 14 was disproportionate, based on several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India wherein it is held that the punishment should be proportionate to the offence.
The Trial Court has not taken into consideration the fact that in the P.F. Form vide Ex.P26 the reason for leaving service has been entered as "wrongful dismissal".
The Trial Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the concerned Enquiry Officer was in good faith and that the rules of natural justice was observed and hence the said enquiry is not vitiated.
The Trial Court has ignored the fact that when the facts came to light Mr.Gundu submitted his resignation and quit the company, which can be attributed to his guilt.
The Trial Court erred in holding that the Appellant had been responsible for double payment to the Transporters by certifying the bills in a negligent manner resulting in financial loss to the Respondent company and hence the order of dismissal cannot be said to be null and void. Viewed from any angle, the impugned judgment and decree is against law, evidence and probabilities of the case and therefore liable to be set aside."
15
17. Reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the learned Trial Judge failed to note the material on record in its proper perspective resulting in dismissal of the suit which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing of the appeal.
18. He further contended that the material evidence placed on record during the domestic enquiry, clearly establish that plaintiff was not directly or indirectly responsible for the alleged double payment to the tune of Rs.81,000/- to M/s. Gemini Cargo Movers and the same has not been properly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and sought for allowing of the appeal.
19. Per contra, Sri Akshay B.M. representing the learned counsel for respondent supported the impugned judgment by contending that the entire enquiry 16 proceedings were marked before the Trial Court as per Ex.D1 and the learned Trial Judge has specifically taken note of all the materials placed on record and rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and none of the appeal grounds are sufficient to upset the findings of the Trial Court and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
20. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, following points would arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the appellant has made out a case that the enquiry proceedings in Domestic Enquiry is vitiated and therefore, the same needs to be set aside and an order needs to be passed reinstating the plaintiff ?
(ii) Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity and thus calls for interference?
(iii) What order ?17
21. In the case on hand, in order to prove the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff Sri B.K. Kumar got himself examined as PW-1. He filed an affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief and deposed that he was an employee under the defendant for about 20 years and in April, 1995, he was promoted as "Superintendent Shipping and Warehousing". He further deposed that he used to receive order from the sales department and it was his duty to scrutinise the spare parts and the orders were duly packed and sent to customers, distributors and dealers. As per the order, the spare parts used to be sent to the customers through lorries, by air, by tempo, by courier depending upon the nature of the order. Apart from scrutinising the spare parts and orders, as per the orders, he was also required to scrutinise the lorry receipts and other transportation bills for payment.
22. He has further deposed that in the year 1998, Executive Personnel by name Mr.M.S.Gundu came to him and requested him to proceed on leave. Accordingly, he 18 went on leave from 14.4.1998 and he received charge sheet under Registered Post along with the Suspension order. As per the charge sheet, he was charged with theft, fraud, misappropriation of money of the Company in connection with Company business and also charge of negligence at the work.
23. He further deposed that he submitted the reply and the same was not accepted and enquiry was initiated. Thereafter, the plaintiff made a representation on 08.06.1996 requesting the enquiry officer to permit him atleast one Mr.K.V.Chandrashekar, an employee of Vijaya Bank for moral support. However, the same was rejected, but he was permitted to have the assistance of a co- employee. But, despite his best efforts, he could not get any support from his collegues who are working in management cadre. He further deposed that on behalf of the management, Chartered Accountant and Member of Executive personnel appeared and one of them was a law graduate. He has further deposed that in the enquiry he 19 alone had to defend his case. He has further deposed that first charge was not proved, but second charge was proved. But, during the course of enquiry, a new charge of 'subversive of discipline' was also included and therefore, the Enquiry Officer recorded a finding that there was a misappropriation to the tune of Rs.81,000/- which is a double payment made to a transport contractor. He also deposed that Internal Auditor by name Sri K.Bharatesh noticed the double payment and he was kept in dark about the report of the internal auditor.
24. He has further deposed that based on the said finding, he was removed from the service which is not proportionate to the charges proved and further deposed that he has got grown up daughters yet to be married and sought for allowing the suit and appeal.
25. Further, in his examination in chief, he also relied on 26 documents as referred to supra.
26. In his cross examination, it is elicited that he worked as Stores Officer, Superintendent Shipping and 20 warehousing for a period of 20 years and had acquired sufficient experience and he is a B.Com., graduate. He admits that he was not fixing the transport charges, but he used to negotiate for transport charges. He admits that transportation bills being processed by him. He admits that he has not made any entries of the bills processed by him. He denied that he has processed the bill in a sum of Rs.81,000/- for the second time for the same transporter. He admits that shipping incharge used to scrutinise and check the bills and it was his duty to pass the bills to the accounts department for payment after verifying the same. He has answered that the test check was done and the bills were sent and the disputed bills were also continued in the batch of the bills that were processed by him. He denied the suggestion that because of his negligence, there was double payment made to the transport contractor. He admits that charge sheet was given to him and he was given an opportunity to putforth the same in the enquiry and the Enquiry Officer has explained the procedure of conduct of enquiry. He admits that he had 21 been given an opportunity to putforth the same to the defendant and he had been given sufficient opportunity to cross examine all the three witnesses who are examined on behalf of the management to prove the charges. He admits that before imposing the punishment he had been furnished with the copy of the report and the finding of the enquiry calling upon his submission on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. He admits that he has been given the opportunity to have the assistance of a co-employee. But he has answered that person of his choice from Vijaya Bank was not given his assistance. He admits that management has permitted him gracefully.
27. On behalf of the defendants, A.G.Shivshankar Group Human Resource Manager is examined as DW-1. He had filed an affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief, wherein he re-iterated the contents of the written statement and sought for dismissal of the suit.
28. In his cross examination, he also relied on the document Ex.D1 as referred to supra in support of his 22 case. In his cross examination, it is elicited that defendant-company is a public limited company supported by American Company. He admits that he joined the defendant-Company as a Personal Officer. He has answered that the plaintiff was promoted as per the promotion policy. He further answered that he was given time bound promotion but he has no documents to establish the same. To a specific question that plaintiff's job was only to shipping out the materials. He has answered that it is the responsibility of the plaintiff to allot the work and supervise the same and authorising the bill for payment. He admits that in Ex.P13, there is no job chart. He has admitted that out of nine bills presented, four bills were attributed to the plaintiff and other bills were attributed to others. He also admits that in the absence of plaintiff his senior can process the bills. To a specific question as to how a sum of Rs.81,000/- has been deducted as excess payment during the course of internal audit discrepancy was noticed. He has answered that after 23 the said discrepancy was noticed, human resource department instructed to proceed with the enquiry.
29. To a specific question as to whether any action has been taken in respect of other persons. In respect of those bills also there was a double payment. The witness has answered that management offered them to resign from the job and they have accepted the offer and resigned the job except one employee by name Ramnath. He has also answered that out of the misappropriation amount in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, 90% of the amount has been recovered from one operator. He denied the suggestion that till Narasimha and Radhakrishna took retirement, no action was initiated.
30. As could be seen from the materials on record, the plaint averments coupled with the oral evidence of PW- 1 and documentss that were furnished before the Trial Court, it is crystal clear that the departmental enquiry held by the defendant - company against the plaintiff is not fair and therefore, the enquiry report needs to be set aside. 24 But PW-1 in his cross examination has clearly admitted that after his prayer for obtaining the assistance of a person from Vijaya Bank has been denied, Enquiry Officer permitted him to have the services of any other co- emplyee. PW-1 has answered that he did contact 4-5 collegues from the management cadre but they did not agree to assist him in the enquiry and therefore, he was made to defend the case by himself. In other words, the answers obtained by the defendant company in the cross examination of PW-1 clearly shows that the enquiry was conducted in a free and fair manner without there being any procedural lapses. Sufficient opportunity was granted to the plaintiff to participate in the enquiry. The fact remains that there was a double payment to a transporter by name M/s.Gemini Cargo Movers to the tune of Rs.81,000/- covering four bills. The same is revealed in the internal audit.
31. It is the case of the plaintiff that he has not provided with the audit report, but the fact remains that 25 the management has produced necessary materials on record before the enquiry officer which would sufficiently establish that there was a double payment to the tune of Rs.81,000/- which were passed by the plaintiff.
32. Admittedly, the plaintiff was promoted and there was a responsibility cast on him being the Superintendent of Shipping and Warehousing.
33. Being the Superintendent of Shipping and Warehousing, it is his responsibility to scrutinise the bill. Plaint averments revealed that it is Mr.M.S.Gundu who is responsible for the same, but strangely, he has not even cited as a witness before the Enquiry committee nor he has been cited as a witness in the suit to establish the same.
34. Even assuming that it is Sri M.S.Gundu who is responsible for passing of the bills, the plaintiff cannot get himself absolved from the charge of double payment made to the transport operator by name M/s.Gemini Cargo Movers. The very purpose of appointing a Superintendent 26 over Mr.M.S.Gundu and plaintiff being the supervisor it was his duty and responsibility to scrutinise each and every bill and then authorise the same for payment. At one breath plaintiff has taken a stand that due to rush of work, he could not bestow his attention to the four bills and double payments have been made such a explanation cannot be accepted.
35. These aspects of the matter has been properly appreciated by the Disciplinary committee while recording a finding that plaintiff is guilty of the charges levelled against him. The charge No.1 where misappropriation and fraud alleged by the management has not been proved. If the enquiry was tainted and was not free and fair, nothing prevented the Enquiry Officer to record a positive record finding on the first charge as well.
36. An opportunity was also given for the plaintiff to prove his explanation in respect of his say in the matter in awarding appropriate punishment by making available the report of the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, the materials 27 on record would not make out a case that the enquiry was not free and fair. The fact of double payment having not disputed by the plaintiff, the only question that has to be determined in the suit was whether the responsibility to re-examine and verify the bill submitted by Mr.M.S.Gundu or otherwise certifying /authorising them for payment. This aspect of the matter would not fall for consideration before the court below in as much as the civil court would not be an appellate court nor the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. All that the Trial Court was required to find out was whether the enquiry conducted is resulting in dismissal of the plaintiff from the defendant-company was free and fair. From the material available on record and the documents that has been produced and relied on by the defendant, it is crystal clear that the enquiry was held in a very fair manner after following the procedure. Accordingly, Point No.1 needs to be answered in the Negative.
28
37. While answering issue Nos.1 and 3 by the learned Trial Judge has recorded its findings in para Nos.21 to 23 as under:
"21. ISSUE NOS. 1 AND 3- In The Premier Automobiles Limited V/s. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke and others AIR 1975 Supreme Court 2238), the principles applicable to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in relation to an have been industrial dispute have been stated thus:
a) If the dispute is not an industrial dispute, nor does it relate to enforcement of any other right under the Act the remedy lies only in the Civil Court.
b) If the dispute is an industrial dispute arising out of a right or liability under the general common law and not under the Act, the jurisdiction of the civil court is alternative, leaving it to the election of the suitor concerned to choose his remedy for the relief which is competent to be granted in a particular remedy.
c) If the industrial dispute relates to the enforcement of a right or an obligation 29 created under the Act, then the only remedy available to the suitor is to get an adjudication under the Act.
d) If the right which is sought to be endorced is a right created under the Act such as Chapter VA then the remedy for its enforcement is either section 33C or the raising of an industrial dispute, as the case may be.
22. In Ramendra Kishore Biswas V/s. State of Tripura (1999(1) KLD (S.C.S.N.) 23, the Apex Court has held that a suit seeking declaration that the dismissal order passed against the plaintiff is void and illegal on the ground that the departmental enquiry was not fairly conducted is maintainable and such a suit is not barred under the Service Rules. In the present case the employment of the plaintiff is a private employment. The plaintiff has been removed from services by the employer after holding enquiry and on finding that the plaintiff's negligence has been established.
In Nandganj Sihori Sugar Company Limited and another v/s Badri Nath Dixit and 30 others (1991 LLR 403 SC) while holding that in the absence of any statutory requirements, Civil Court do not ordinarily an employer to recruit or retain in service an employee not required by the employer, the Apex Court held that the Court has no jurisdiction to order re-instatement of dismissed employee and that such an employee can only claim damages. In its judgment the Apex Court has quoted Halsbury's Laws of England, fourth Edition, Volume 44, at page 407.
In integrated Rural Development Agency V/s. Ram Pyare Pandey (1995 ILR
929), the Apex Court has held that there cannot be specific performance of a contract of service and the master can terminate the contract with his servant and in Such a cases he must pay damages for breach of contract.
23. In AIR India Corporation, Bombay V/s. V.A.Rebellow and another (1972(1) LLJ 501 SC), an Assistant Station Superintendent, in the performance of his duties, had a deal with air hostesses. The corporation not being fully satisfied beyond suspicion about his general conduct and 31 behavior while dealing with them, terminated the services of the complainant under Regulation 48 of Air India Employees Services Regulation. The validity of the order of termination of the service was in question.
The Labour Court held that the employee was a workman, and the discharge in this case was not discharge simplicitor but in breach of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The AIR India Corporation had lost confidence in the complainant and this loss of confidence was due to a grave suspicion regarding the complainant's private conduct and behavior with air hostesses employed by the Corporation. It was held with once bonafide loss of confidence is affirmed the impugned order must be considered to be immune from challenge. All that can be said is the Civil Courts do have the jurisdiction to try the suit in which the order of dismissal is challenged on the ground of non-observance of principles of natural justice. At the same time the relief of reinstatement cannot be ordered by the Civil Courts, since the matter in issue relates to breach of contract of personnel services. It being found from the evidence that there was no breach of rules of natural justice and 32 that defendant was justified in terminating the service of the plaintiff on the ground of loss of confidence and also negligence, the plaintiff will not be entitled to reliefs in the suit. Therefore I answer Issues 2 and 3 in the negative."
38. In fact, the Trial Court took into consideration of all necessary materials on record and by placing reliance on the reported legal principles enunciated in the various judicial pronouncements has recorded that the suit of the plaintiffs needs no interference even after re-appreciation of the materials on record, this court is of the considered opinion that the grounds urged in the appeal are hardly sufficient to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Trial Judge which is impugned in the present appeal.
39. Further, no other grounds are urged either on behalf of the appellant to hold that the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity. In 33 view of the foregoing discussion, Point No.2 is also required to be answered in negative.
40. REGARDING POINT NO.3: In view of this court's finding on point Nos.1 & 2 above, following order is passed:
ORDER The appeal sans merit and accordingly, dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL*