M/S Sidhartha Super Spinning Limited vs Shri Dharam Pal Singh Tomar on 17 September, 2021

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

M/S Sidhartha Super Spinning Limited vs Shri Dharam Pal Singh Tomar on 17 September, 2021

Suit filed by an employee against his employer for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of damages and compensation in lieu of his alleged illegal termination of services was decreed on 23.04.2008 by the learned trial Court for an amount of Rs.2,87,700/-. This decree was affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court on 19.09.2008. Feeling aggrieved, the employer has come up by way of this regular second appeal.

2. The employee was the plaintiff. His case was that he was appointed and working as Supervisor in the defendant-company w.e.f. 11.10.1994. On 2.1.2003, the defendant-company terminated his services without assigning any reason. During his service tenure, plaintiff was never reprimanded or charged with any allegation of mis-conduct whatsoever. The order dated 2.1.2003 terminating his services was illegal and issued in-violation of principles of natural justice. No inquiry prior to his termination was ever ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:05:30 :::CIS 3 conducted by the defendant-company. The plaintiff also stated that at the time of termination, he was aged about 51 years .

with 7 more years of service remaining. He also pleaded that he was drawing a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. After deduction of allowances like PPF etc., he was being paid net salary of Rs.4520/- per month. After termination of his services, he could not secure any other job despite his best efforts, as no vacancy was available in other spinning mills.

2(ii) In the written statement, defendants admitted the plaintiff's appointment and his working as supervisor in their industry w.e.f. 11.10.1994. The defendants also admitted regularizing plaintiff's services. The termination of plaintiff's services vide letter dated 2.1.2003 was also admitted. The reason put-forth by the defendants in terminating plaintiff's services was his alleged absenteeism at work place.

Defendants pleaded that termination of plaintiff's services was in accordance with terms and conditions of his appointment letter dated 11.10.1994. It was stated that by accepting the terms and conditions of his appointment letter, a contract was created between the plaintiff and the defendants. In terms whereof, the services of the plaintiff could be terminated by giving him one month's notice or payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice.

::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:05:30 :::CIS 4

2(iii) The parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. After considering the entire material .

available on record, learned trial Court took note of the admitted fact that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendants w.e.f. 11.10.1994 and drawing Rs.3,425/- per month as basic salary. His services were terminated on 2.1.2003. The letter dated 2.1.2003 did not disclose any reason for terminating his services. Alleged absenteeism of plaintiff taken as a ground in the written statement for termination of his services was found to be missing in the termination letter. Certain documents produced by the defendants in support of terminating plaintiff's services were not treated as genuine evidence having not been served upon the plaintiff and also being of unauthentic nature. After appreciating the evidence, it was also held that the plaintiff had not accepted any employment during the period in question. Taking his salary as Rs.3425/- per month and considering 7 years of his service, remaining at the time of termination, the total damages were worked out as under:-

Rs.3,425 X 12x 7= Rs.2,87,700/-.

Accordingly the suit filed by the plaintiff (respondent herein) was decreed for recovery of ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:05:30 :::CIS 5 Rs.2,87,700/-. The decree has been affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court.

.

3. Aggrieved, the defendants (employer) have come up by way of present regular second appeal. This appeal was admitted on 19.11.2008 on following substantial questions of law:-

"(I) Whether the Ld Lower Appellate Court has erred in law and ignored Exhibit D8 to D-10 and Exhibit D2 to D4 and D5 which has resulted in wrong findings and error of law apparent on the face of record? If so its effect?

(2) Whether the Ld Appellate Court below has misinterpreted the provision of appointment letter Exhibit D1 which governs the terms and condition of the service between the parties resulting wrong findings? If so its effect?

(3) Whether the findings of the Ld Appellate Court in not appreciating the provisions of Section 114(g) of Evidence Act has resulted in wrong and illegal findings? If so its effect?"

3(i) Question of law No.1.

Exhibit D-2 to D-5 and Exhibit D-8 to D-10 are not relevant for deciding the issue raised by the plaintiff more particularly in view of the stand taken by the defendants.

None of these documents reflected any reason for terminating plaintiff's services on 2.1.2003. The plaintiff was admittedly appointed as Supervisor by the defendants on ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:05:30 :::CIS 6 11.10.1994. His services were terminated on 2.1.2003 without assigning any reason whatsoever. Defendants took .

up a stand in the written statement that plaintiff's services were terminated as he habitually remained absent from work. However, no such reason was mentioned in the termination order. Documents mentioned in the substantial questions of law do not advance the case of the defendants at all. These exhibits are legal notices, replies thereto etc. These documents do not and cannot provide reasons for termination of plaintiff's services. Even otherwise, there is no proof that these documents were either received by the plaintiff or served upon him. Learned Courts below were justified in assuming that under such circumstances, possibility of preparing these documents subsequent to the termination of petitioner's services cannot be ruled out.

Question of law is answered accordingly.

    3(ii)         Question of law no.2

                  Exhibit D-1 is the letter     dated 11.10.1994,

whereby the plaintiff was appointed as Supervisor by the defendants. Plaintiff was a regular employee of defendant-

company. The letter of appointment dated 11.10.1994 contained various conditions governing the services of the plaintiff with the defendants. Condition No.3 provided for ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:05:30 :::CIS 7 termination of services of a confirmed employee after issuing him one month's notice or salary in lieu thereof. For .

termination on disciplinary grounds, no such notice was to be issued. Condition No.4 provided for termination of an employee, who had proceeded on leave without prior permission or sanction or over-stayed the sanction leave.

Condition No.5 provided for termination of an employee, who remained absent from duty without prior permission or sanction of leave for three days in a month.

In the instant case, admittedly, plaintiff's services were terminated on 2.1.2003 without assigning any reason whatsoever. There is nothing in the letter dated 2.1.2003 to indicate that the plaintiff derelicted in discharging his duties. No notice to the plaintiff was served before terminating his services. No inquiry was ever conducted by the defendants before terminating plaintiff's services. Plaintiff was a regular employee of the defendants. He had served them for about 9 years. No opportunity of hearing whatsoever was afforded to him by the defendants. Both the learned Courts below correctly appreciated the terms and conditions of appointment of the petitioner vis-a-vis termination of his services by the defendants. Question of law No.2 is answered accordingly.

::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:05:30 :::CIS 8

    3(iii)         Question of law no.3.

                   A ground raised by the defendants in the




                                                                    .

instant appeal is that the plaintiff had failed to produce evidence to show that he had not been gainfully employed for the period in question. The argument has been raised only to be rejected. Plaintiff had asserted that he was already around 51 years of age at the time of illegal termination of his services by the defendants. He had served with the defendants for about 9 years and was left with 7 years of service at the time of his termination. At fag end of his service career, he was thrown out by the defendants without any rhyme or reason. Plaintiff stated that he tried his level best to secure job in spinning mills but could not get employment for want of vacancy. No evidence to refute such assertion was produced by the defendants. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the plaintiff was not entitled for the compensation awarded by the learned Courts below. Question of law is answered accordingly against the appellants.

4. Learned Courts below have returned concurrent findings on facts after properly appreciating the pleadings. No substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal. Parameters set down in Section 100 of Code ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:05:30 :::CIS 9 of Civil Procedure are not met. The regular second appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed accordingly.

5. Cross Objection No.314/2009 By means of this cross-objection, the plaintiff has prayed for grant of interest on the amount decreed in his favour by the learned trial Court. Learned trial Court had decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,87,700/-. Interest over the amount decreed was not granted. The plaintiff did not challenge the judgment and decree dated 23.4.2008 passed by the learned trial Court inasmuch as it did not grant him interest over the decretal amount, before the learned First Appellate Court.

Without challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court before the learned First Appellate Court to the extent it did not grant interest to the plaintiff on the amount decreed in his favor, the plaintiff cannot maintain instant cross objection claiming before this Court the relief of interest. Accordingly, the cross-objection cannot be entertained and the same is dismissed.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge September 17, 2021 (rohit) ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:05:30 :::CIS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court