- (1.) This suit has been filed praying for a decree for a sum of Rs.15 Lakh by way of compensation against the defendant company and for a further sum of Rs.2,34,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Thirty Four Thousand) only, by way of legal dues and/or emoluments that were payable to the plaintiff by the defendant and interest thereon.
(2.) In short, the plaint case is as follows :- Plaintiff was appointed and employed by the defendant company on 1st August, 1974 in a post designated as Accountant. However, no formal letter of appointment was handed over to the plaintiff at the time and the plaintiff performed his duties as an employee of the defendant company in the post of Accountant on and from the date of appointment. The fact that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant company would be evident from the appointment letter in Form 'X' filed by the defendant company in the office of the Shops and Establishments under Rule 53 of the West Bengal Shops and Establishments Rules, 1964 and the plaintiff was drawing a consolidated salary of Rs.1,050/- at the time of appointment. Plaintiff continued to render service to the defendant company as an employee and his salary was increased from time to time commensurate with the expertise and efficiency the plaintiff acquired the confidence of the company and he was given higher responsibilities in the discharge of his duties. In course of performing his duties the plaintiff had also to visit the tea garden office of the defendant at Oodlabari in the district of Jalpaiguri as also its branch office at Delhi, Jaipur, Udaypur, Sujangarh and Kota. The plaintiff also attended before the relevant authorities in connection with payment of sales tax, excise duties and before other relevant authorities. The defendant company, being a private company, did not maintain any separate file or service book relating to its employees. The terms and conditions of various employees of the defendant company were mostly governed by the unwritten code such as, sanctioning of leave, hours of duty and allocation of work etc. In all cases it was the practice of the company to grant leave on oral prayer and the plaintiff's prayer for leave was sanctioned by the defendant company verbally. On or about 1st April, 1992, the plaintiff was asked by the defendant company to work in the superior post designated as Chief Accounts Officer and/or Chief Officer. After this appointment was made plaintiff insisted that a fresh formal letter of appointment be handed over to him and eventually, after great persuasion by the plaintiff, a letter was handed over to him on May 23, 1994 being the letter of the defendant dated 22nd May, 1994 under the signature of Smt. Mita Choraria, a Director of the defendant company. The said letter dated 22nd May, 1994 records the terms and conditions of service of the plaintiff with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1992 in the post of Chief Officer which is also designated as Chief Accounts Officer. From 1st April, 1992 the plaintiff received salary of Rs.5,350/- (Rupees Five Thousand Three Hundred Fifty) only. The management of the defendant company, for various reasons, stated that gross monthly remuneration of the plaintiff would be paid to him under two heads, that is, monthly salary and monthly taxi fare. This practice was followed from 1st April, 1990 and as on 1st April, 1992, the plaintiff was paid per month Rs.3,500/- as salary and Rs.1,850/- as the monthly taxi fare for attending company's duties and business making a total gross monthly payment of Rs.5,350/-. Out of good faith, the plaintiff accepted such position. The plaintiff is also entitled to incremental benefits in the year 1993-94 and 1994-95 and such increments were allotted to other employees at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month. Plaintiff enjoyed a position of repute in the company. Bitterness arose between the plaintiff and the defendant consequent to a search and seizure in the office of the company as also residence of the Managing Director of the defendant company in relation to income tax matter and particularly that various documents and papers came to light those were incriminating for the interest of the defendant company as well as its Directors. In the wake of the said development in 1994, the plaintiff was subjected to humiliation and the plaintiff was treated in a manner not befitting his post in the defendant company. Plaintiff made several correspondences with the company in the latter part of the year 1994 and also in the early part of 1995 from which it is evident that management of the defendant company under the guidance of one of the Directors, namely, Mr. Deep Chand Nahata and his other associates illegally put blame upon the plaintiff and made allegations against him of insubordination, dereliction of duty etc. In making allegations against the plaintiff, the defendant company also falsely implicated his wife Smt. Raj Kumari Chhajer, whose sole proprietorship concern M/s. Avlon Products is a tenant at all material times of the flat which is being used by the plaintiff as residence but the defendant company illegally and wrongfully attempted to oust the plaintiff from the said tenancy which is his residence. By a letter dated 28th March, 1995, the plaintiff was dismissed from his service. After such termination the company started spreading rumours in the business circle that the plaintiff has allegedly derelicted in his duties, was guilty of gross insubordination and also guilty of misappropriation of funds. Pursuant to such rumours spread by the management of the defendant company, the plaintiff was unable to get any employment elsewhere. The acts and action of the defendant have caused damage to the reputation, prestige and dignity of the plaintiff apart from the defamation that has been caused to him and the same was occasioned due to the mala fide, wrongful, vindictive, illegal insinuation of the company and its management and the same had been done with ulterior motive to insinuate and defame the plaintiff and to ruin his career. The plaintiff estimated such damages to a sum of Rs.15 Lakh. Apart from the damages to the extent of Rs.15 Lakh, the plaintiff claimed that on account of legal dues and/or emoluments those were payable to him he is entitled to Rs.2,34,000/-.
(3.) Therefore, the plaintiff has made the following prayers in the plaint ? a) "Declaration that the letter of termination dated 28th March, 1995 is bad, illegal, invalid and void ab initio; b) Decree for Rs.15,00,000/- as damages for defamation; c) Decree for Rs.2,34,000/- as stated in paragraph 19 of the plaint; d) Interim interest and interest upon judgment at the rate of 18 per cent per annum on the total principal sum of Rs.17,34,000/-; e) Alternatively an enquiry into damages suffered by the plaintiff, by this Hon'ble Court and a decree for such sum as may be determined by this Hon'ble Court upon such enquiry; f) Attachment before judgment; g) Receiver; h) Injunction; i) Costs; j) Such further or other relief or reliefs." ;