ARINDAM SINHA, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff had filed his suit for declaration, injunction and damages for wrongful dismissal from employment. Such suit was decreed in part on contest with costs. The plaintiff got a declaration that the censure notice and order of termination made by the defendant against him was wrongful in nature and a decree for damages of Rs.86,400/ -. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the rejection of the rest of his claim for damages, the plaintiff preferred this appeal.
(2.) THE only question that arises in this appeal relates to the quantum of damages the plaintiff is entitled. This is because the declaration made by the Ld. Court below stands accepted by the defendant. Mr. S. P. Roychoudhury Ld. Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that the service of the plaintiff was wrongfully terminated on 20th February, 2003 and the plaintiff filed the suit on 9th June, 2003. The plaintiff in cross -examination on 5th April, 2005 had deposed that he was unemployed and not trying to get further job with his qualification. It was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the wrongful termination was a stigma attached to the plaintiff by reason of which knowing he would not get employment elsewhere, he had been compelled to file the suit in seeking to have, inter alia, the stigma removed. There was no evidence on record to the effect that the plaintiff obtained employment elsewhere or had obtained some income following wrongful termination of his service by the defendant. In the circumstances, the plaintiff was entitled to his claim on damages as made in the suit.
(3.) MR . Roychoudhury, took us through the pleadings in the plaint, paragraph 49 thereof and the written statement also paragraph 49 in dealing with the particulars of the plaintiff 's claim for damages. He submitted that the bare allegation made by the defendant that there was no justification or basis for the amount of damages of Rs.1,07,68,075/ -claimed was at best an evasive denial. He relied on Order 8 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure to submit that the claim made by the plaintiff on account of damages by particulars given in paragraph 49 of the plaint thus stood admitted. According to Mr. Roychoudhury the plaintiff, therefore, had proved actual loss suffered. To substantiate his submissions, Mr. Roychoudhury relied upon the decisions reported in (2004) 1 WBLR (Cal) 799 (WBSEB Vs. Dilip Kumar Roy and Ors.), (2003) 5 Supreme Court Cases 705 (ONGC Ltd. Vs. Saw Pipes Ltd.), AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2003 (Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Union of India) and AIR 1985 Delhi 45 (Andard Mount (London) Ltd. Vs. Curewel (India) Ltd. New Delhi).;