B VVENKATACHARYA Vs. MYSORE SUGAR COLTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal against the dismissal of a suit for damages claimed on the ground of wrongful termination of service. The plaintiff who is a graduate in Agriculture was appointed Farm Superintendent on a salary of Rs. 300/- in the grade Rs. 300-25-500 on prohibition for 1 year, entered on his duties as such on 10-8-1946 and was served on 23-11-1946 with a notice intimating termination of his employment from 9-12-1346. He issued a notice on 23-1-1947 alleging that the termination of service was wrongful but the defendant in its reply of 21-3-1947 maintained that it was justified. Thereupon the suit was filed on 5-4-1947 seeking payment of Rs. 2487-1-6 as salary for unexpired period of appointment, Rs. 331-10-0 high price allowance, compensation of 1000-0-0 for mental worry, of 2000-0-0 for loss of reputation, of 500-0-0 for loss due to dislocation of affairs and 25-5-6 as notices charges, in all Rs. 6344-1-0. Defendant denied liability to pay any amount and contended that the appointment of the plaintiff was not regular, that even otherwise its termination could not be questioned. The learned Subordinate Judge on a consideration of the evidence adduced in the case held that the appointment of the plaintiff was quite valid and legal, that there was no good reason for the termination of the service but it afforded no cause of action for the suit as the employment was at the will of the defendant. He therefore dismissed the suit with costs.

(2.) In this appeal the claim is limited to the salary and allowance besides a sum of Rs. 500/-as damages for wrongful dismissal, the other amounts being given up. The arguments on either side were confined to the nature and extent of the rights which an employee has when he is appointed on probation. No case in which the question was raised or decided has been brought to our notice. The term 'probation' is not defined or explained anywhere by the defendant in the rules governing appointments. The plaintiff did not ascertain the exact implication of the words "on probation for one year" when he entered service. It is possible that the plaintiff had the impression that he would not be disturbed at all. Likewise it is improbable that defendant would have sent away plaintiff if the former incumbent for the post was not restored. At the time the plaintiff was appointed the previous Superintendent was reverted to the post of Chemist. The reversion was subsequently held to be unjust or unnecessary and as such recalled so that plaintiff had to vacate the office in his favour. Both parties rely on the terms of the order of appointment to justify the stand of each and the question is as to which of these is to be upheld.

(3.) In Exhibit E which is a publication in the Hindu inviting applications for the post it is stated that "candidates selected will be on probation for one year and salary will be according to qualifications". There is no mention of the possibility of the candidate being confirmed at the end of one year. Exhibit J dated 8-8-1946 addressed to the plaintiff states