Jharkhand High Court
Tata Engineering And Locomotive ... vs Smt. Anjali Rani Mitra And Anr. on 3 July, 2002
Bench: S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Lakshman Uraon
ORDER
1. This letters patent appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant having lost in both the Original and Appellate Courts.
2. A Title Suit No. 51/1971 was preferred by the plaintiff, Bhavesh Kumar Mitra (since deceased) for a declaration that his dismissal from service by the defendant company was wrongful and illegal and also for damages for such wrongful dismissal. The learned 1st Addl. Sub-Ordinate Judge, Jamshedpur, vide judgment and decree dated 20.8.1986 in T.S. No. 51/71 held the dismissal order wrongful and illegal and allowed damages to the tune of Rs. 69,432/- in favour of the plaintiff (since deceased).
3. The appeal from Original Decree No. 170/86(R) (First Appeal) was preferred by the defendant-appellant M/s. Tata Engineering and locomotive Company Limited (Hereinafter referred to as the Company in short) against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed in T.S. No. 51/71. During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff-respondent died in whose place the present respondents, widow, Smt. Anjali Rani Mitra and daughter, Sumati Mitra, were substituted on 8.5.1995.
4. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that he was a permanent employee of defendant-Company in the post of Tool Crib Attendant, drawing the basic salary of Rs. 217/- in the transport department of the Company. He entered into the service on 22.12.1949 and in ordinary course would have retired from the services of the Company on 22.12.1980. While he was in service, the company initiated a proceeding against him and issued charge sheet on 22.9.1967 alleging that on 16.9.1967 at 11.15 a.m. the plaintiff was caught by the security staff on duty at gate No. 1 with 82 numbers of Hexa Bolts valued at Rs. 45/-while he was attempting to take away the same out of the work shop in jeep No. BRI 9876, a departmental vehicle, which was scheduled to go out for the purpose of testing. It is also alleged that the plaintiff had kept the stolen property concealed, wrapped in his rain coat.
5. The plaintiff submitted his explanation denying the charges. His case was that on 16.9.1967, he was on duty at the Tool Crib within the factory premises upto 11.00 a.m. Then there was half an hour recess for lunch. He left on foot for the main gate No. 1 to get his tiffin carrier. The distance of the main gate from the Tool Crib was about 600 yards. When he had negotiated a distance of about 160 yards on foot, a jeep crossed his way. The chargeman namely, H.N. Ghosh and Mr. Banwari Das were on the vehicle and one Surjit Singh was driving the same. The chargeman aforementioned offered a lift to him (plaintiff) and he accordingly boarded in the jeep and occupied the rear seat which was vacant. The plaintiff was carrying nothing when he entered and occupied in the jeep. Further, the case of the plaintiff was that he had no knowledge about the existence of any water-proof which did not belong to him. The security guard assumed the water-proof to be belonging to the plaintiff, and asked him to open the same to which the plaintiff replied that the same was not his property the security guard thrust the water-proof into his hand and on his refusal to hold it, he pushed it back and then some bolts fell on the floor of the jeep which rolled of the water-proof. The plaintiff wanted to get down from the jeep but the security guard pushed him back and abused him. The plaintiff was then suspended from duty on 22.9.1967 and an enquiry was conducted by one Mr. V.C. Stephen, a labour officer of the defendant-Company. It was alleged by the plaintiff that he was never communicated the date of the enquiry nor copy of the order of dismissal was served on him. The plaintiff merely received a letter from the Town Superintendent dated 14.3.1986, to surrender the Company's quarters from which the plaintiff came to know that he was dismissed.
6. The defendant-Company appeared before the trial Court and opposed the case on the ground of maintainability, limitation and also on merit. The learned 1st Additional Sub-Judge by its judgment dated 20.8.1986, discussing the evidences on record, held that the dismissal of the plaintiff from the services of the defendant-Company is wrongful and illegal. The counsel for the appellant submitted that no issue was framed relating to legality and propriety of the order of dismissal. In the aforesaid background, we heard the counsel for the appellant in respect of aforesaid issue and also perused the L.C. record and judgment passed in suit,
7. From the evidences placed on record, it is evident that the alleged incidence, took place on 16.9.1967, the defendant-Company stated as per Ext. 5 that the plaintiff was dismissed on 22.9.1967 i.e., just after six days from the date of incidence. The aforesaid admitted fact clearly shows the manner in which the departmental proceeding was concluded within six days and the plaintiff was dismissed in violation of rules of natural justice.
8. The learned single Judge by judgment dated 14.3.1997, passed in Appeal from Original Decree No. 170/86(R), came to a definite conclusion that the order of dismissal was passed completely in violation of the principle of natural justice. The statement of the plaintiff was recorded even before the alleged eye-witnesses deposed against him and were examined. The plaintiff was not given any chance to enter into the defence for adducing evidence in rebuttal. This action on the part of appellant has not been explained by the defendant-appellant either before the Original Court or in first appeal nor in this letters patent appeal.
9. Mr. V.R Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit against the order of dismissal was not maintainable, but submission is rejected there being no bar to prefer a suit against an order of dismissal or to obtain a declaration in respect of an order of dismissal or a decree for damages.
10. The second submission made by Mr. V.P. Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant that the damage amount of Rs. 69,432/- was not assessed by the first Court on the basis of any evidence is also to be rejected, as the details of calculation of damage amounting to Rs. 69,432/- was shown by the plaintiff in 'Schedule-A' to the plaint which he claimed and was allowed by way of consequential relief.
11. Further, the plaintiff having died during the pendency of the First Appeal as the widow and daughter are now entitled for the decreed amount, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment dated 14.3.1997 passed in Appeal from Original Decree No. 170/1986 [R) whereby thee judgment and decree passed in T.S. No. 51/71 has been affirmed.
12. There being no merit in this letters patent appeal it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.