Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2003, whereby a decree for recovery of Rs.8,81,667/- with proportionate costs and pendente lite and future interest @ 10% per annum was passed in favour of the respondent and against the appellants. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal can be summarized as under:-

The respondent/plaintiff was employed as a Nursery/KG teacher with appellant No. 1 St. John‟s School, which is being run and managed by appellant No. 2 Delhi Mar Thoma Church Society. The services of the plaintiff/respondent were terminated with effect from 01.10.2001. The case of the plaintiff/respondent is that though her salary was Rs.7331/- per month, the appellants/defendants were wrongfully and illegally deducting a sum of Rs 2706/- per month from her salary and when she protested against such deduction, the defendants/appellants threatened to terminate her services. A sum of Rs 64,896/- was deducted from her salary in this manner, in about 24 months. This was also her case that on a strong protest by her in July-August, 2001, the defendants/appellants offered her a package of 05 month salary in case she submitted her resignation. They also threatened her to resign or else they would terminate her services, in case the offer was not accepted by her. According to the plaintiff/respondent, she refused to resign as a result of which she was not allowed to take classes with effect from 01.08.2001 and subsequently her services were terminated with effect from 01.10.2001. She accordingly claimed Rs 64,896/- being the amount wrongfully deducted from her services, Rs 21,993/- as arrears of salary, Rs 7,18,438/- on account of damages for illegal and wrongful termination of her services and Rs 50,000/- on account of damages for mental sufferings.

In N.P.Mathai v. The Federal Bank Ltd. (decided on 6th November, 1992 by High Court of Kerala) MANU/KE/0322/1992 the appellant was Manager in Trivendrum Branch of the defendant bank. His services were terminated by the bank and one month‟s salary in lieu of notice was given to him while terminating his service. The case of the appellant was that the termination order was a penal action which had not preceded by an inquiry and therefore was invalid. This was also his contention that the contract of service did not empower the defendant to terminate his services without sufficient reasons and his services were to endure till superannuation. The appellant sought a declaration that he continued to be in service. Alternatively, he claimed damages by way of compensation for wrongful termination of his services. He was 44 years old at the time when his services were terminated and had he continued in service, he would have superannuated on reaching the age of 60 years. However, before the High Court, the appellant did not press for reinstatement and the compensation claimed by him was also reduced. The defendant however, contended that it had got the right to terminate the services of the plaintiff under Rule 28 and the termination was in accordance with said Rule. This was also the case of the plaintiff before the Court that the action taken by the defendant was without bona fides and he had been removed from service because he was a stumbling block in the way of promotion and prospects of brother of Chairman of the defendant bank. The defendant contended that the principles of natural justice could not be imported in the matter of enforcing the contract and were not applicable to termination of a contract by one of the parties to the contract. The High Court, on an analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case, was of the view that the plaintiff‟s services were terminated for an alleged misconduct and the termination order was passed to avoid an inquiry which the bank was bound to do under its own Code and therefore was in reality, a disciplinary action. The Court therefore directed payment of compensation to the plaintiff for a wrongful termination of his services.

16. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the plaintiff/respondent is awarded an all inclusive compensation/damages amounting to Rs.3,50,000/- on account of wrongful termination of her services.

17. Thus, the plaintiff/respondent is entitled to recover the following amounts from the defendants/appellants:

(i) Rs.64,902/- being the amount wrongfully deducted from her salary

(ii) Rs.7,331/- towards arrears of salary for August, 2001.

(iii) Rs. 244/- towards salary of one day in September, 2001 and

(iv) Rs.3,50,000/- being the consolidated damages on account of wrongful termination of her services, thereby making a total of Rs.4,22,477/-.

The issues are decided accordingly.

18. For the reasons stated hereinabove, a decree for recovery of Rs.4,22,477/- with proportionate costs and pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum is passed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and against the defendants/appellants. The appeal stands disposed of. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. TCR be sent back.