- (1.) This is an appeal by the defendants against a judgment of reversal. The plaintiff instituted the suit on the following allegations: The plaintiff worked for several years temporarily under the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. the defendant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Company) at its Regional Office at premises No. 433/1 G. T. Road (North), Howrah as vendor, cleaner and plate washer in places of absent and leave-enjoying bearers. He was appointed by the company in that post on February 1, 1968 and after unspotted and continuous service for six months became automatically permanent in his post from August 1, 1968. The Revenue Officer of the said office, the defendant No. 2 by a verbal order passed on November 12, 1968 discontinued the plaintiff's service without assigning any reason or following legal procedure. The plaintiff in the circumstances instituted this suit on November 13, 1968 praying for a declaration that (i) the verbal order of discontinuance of the plaintiff's service was illegal, void, inoperative and ultra vires; (ii) the plaintiff was and continued to be in the said permanent service and entitled to salary and damages; (iii) injunction restraining the defendants from issuing any written order of dismissal of the plaintiff without following the legal procedure.
(2.) The suit was contested by the defendants who filed a joint written statement stating inter alia that the plaintiff served as a casual labourer paid on hourly basis for a "little" period in non-permanent post of vendor, cleaner and plate washer. Eventually he was found surplus and his services were dispensed with by the defendant No. 2 who was the competent authority. A casual labourer was never appointed in writing, nor his service was required to be dispensed with by any written order and as a casual labourer, the plaintiff could not claim right of enquiry or observance of legal procedure in matter of his dismissal from service as he held the job at the pleasure of the defendants. The impugned order was legal, proper and valid and the plaintiff. It was submitted was not entitled to any relief in the suit which was not maintainable in law.
(3.) On a trial on evidence, the learned Munsif found that the plaintiff was a temporary workman and was not entitled to any notice before his dismissal. The impugned order of dismissal was legal and valid and passed by the competent authority. It was further held that the suit was not maintainable in law, which, in the premises was dismissed.;