DIPAK KUMAR DAS Vs. PARKEDAVIS INDIA LTD AND 3 ORS
LAWS(GAU)-2018-6-18
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on June 04,2018

DIPAK KUMAR DAS Appellant
VERSUS
Parkedavis India Ltd And 3 Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Kalyan Rai Surana, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. P.K. Roy, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. D. Baruah, the learned Advocate for the respondents No.2 and 3.
(2.) The appellant is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 220/2001. The said suit was filed for realizing a sum of Rs.63,56,750/- as damages and compensation on the alleging that the appellant was illegally and mala fide terminated from service.
(3.) The brief background of the present litigation is as follows:- a. That vide appointment letter dated 08.09.1967 (Ext.1), the appellant was initially employed in Mumbai as Medical Serviceman by erstwhile Parke Davis (India) Ltd. (respondent- defendant No.1). Accordingly, the appellant joined his service on 18.07.1967. The said Respondent No.1 Company is since merged with Pfizer Ltd. (respondent No.2). The service of the appellant was confirmed as a permanent staff by the Respondent No.1 vide letter dated 09.01.1969 (Ext.2). By letter dated 19.12.1983 (Ext.3), the appellant was promoted as Field Manager w.e.f. 01.12.1983 by the Respondent No.1 with his Head Quarter at Ranchi. After about 3 (three) years, the appellant was transferred to Guwahati. b. Thereafter, vide letter dated 29.12.1997, the other staffs were communicated not to report to the appellant but to report to another officer. Aggrieved by the said letter dated 29.12.1997, the appellant had instituted T.S. No. 4/1998 before the learned Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), No.1, Guwahati. The said suit was transferred for trial before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), No.3, Guwahati. Along with the said suit, a petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC for ad-interim injunction, which was numbered as Misc. (J) Case No. 4/1998. The learned trial court granted ad-interim injunction vide order dated 02.01.1998, which was made absolute by order dated 02.03.1998. The respondent No.1 preferred an appeal, which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 10/1998. The said appeal was allowed by judgment and order dated 12.03.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.1, Kamrup, Guwahati. The appellant preferred a revision before this Court, which was registered as Civil Revision No. 124/1998. This Court by order dated 21.07.1998, dismissed the said revision, however, by directing that the first appellate judgment shall not influence the trial court while deciding the suit. c. In the meanwhile, the appellant was re-designated as Manager, Institutional Sales in North East Region, at Guwahati by order dated 12.03.1998. During the pendency of the suit, the appellant was transferred from Guwahati to Nagpur by letter dated 24.12.1998. Owing to the subsequent development, the appellant prayed for amendment of the plaint, and he had once again prayed for injunction. The learned trial court by order dated 08.02.1999, directed the respondent No.1 to maintain status quo prior to 24.12.1998 till the disposal of the amendment petition. The respondent No.1 preferred an appeal and the learned first appellate set aside the order passed by the learned trial court to maintain status-quo. Against the said first appellate order, the appellant approached this Court by filing CRP No. 128/1999. This Court by order dated 21.04.1999 had stayed the operation of the order passed by the learned first appellate Court. However, by order dated 29.09.1999. d. Thereafter, the appellant withdrew TS No. 4/1998 and instituted TS 236/99. The said case was being tried in the Court of learned Civil Judge No.3, Guwahati. The learned trial court did not grant ad-interim injunction in connection with Misc. (J) Case No. 303/99. Therefore, the appellant preferred an appeal, being Misc. Appeal No. 44/1999. However, the learned appellate Court also did not grant any ad-interim relief. In the meanwhile, the said TS No. 236/1999 was dismissed for non- prosecution by order dated 24.04.2000. e. In the meanwhile after a series of correspondence, the service of the appellant was terminated vide letter dated 07.06.2000 (Ext.P). and vide letter dated 10.07.2000, the gratuity payable to the appellant amounting to Rs.1,17,696/- was paid by way of a bank draft enclosed thereto.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.