- (1.) PANKAJ Mithal, J. Office has reported that there is a defect in the appeal as the valuation clause has not been worded in accordance with Chapter IX Rule VII (h) of the Rules of the Court.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants prays for and is permitted to correct the wordings of the valuation clause. Accordingly, as there is no other defect in the presentation of the appeal, office is directed to allot a regular number to this appeal by treating the defect as having cured. The plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendants alleging that he was an employee of the defendants and was working as Sales Promoter Assistant w. e. f. 21. 6. 1986 on the basic salary of Rs. 750/- per month but the defendants have stopped taking work from him allegedly by obtaining his signatures on blank paper and accordingly he prayed for the following reliefs in the plaint: " (a) That it be declared that the alleged termination of the service of the plaintiff by the defendants from 24. 10. 1989 is illegal and inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff and the plaintiff still continues in service of the defen dants. Rs. 25000/- (b) That the defendants be directed to pay the entire salary and other emolu ments to the plaintiff since 24. 10. 1989 and onwards and the C. F. is 500/- is being paid on madimums (sic) and the tentative valuation is Rs. 10, 000/ -. (c) Cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff. (d) Any other and further relief which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be also awarded to the plaintiff against the defendants. " The relief claimed in the plaint amply demonstrates that the petitioner is seeking a declaration that his termination from service w. e. f. 24. 10. 1989 be de clared illegal, he be allowed to continue in service and be paid arrears of salary and other emoluments.
(3.) THE suit after contest was decreed by the Court of first instance vide judgment and order dated 29. 3. 2004. THE appeal of the defendants has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 29. 3. 2004, thus, the defendants have come up in the second appeal. Heard Sri P. M. Saxena, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amit Saxena learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri B. B. Paul along with Sri A. P. Paul, learned Counsel for respondent.;