PRAFULLA RANJAN SARKAR Vs. HINDUSTHAN BUILDING SOCIETY LTD
LAWS(CAL)-1959-9-7
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 01,1959

PRAFULLA RANJAN SARKAR Appellant
VERSUS
HINDUSTHAN BUILDING SOCIETY LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.P.Mitra, J. - (1.) In this suit the plaintiffs case is that in 1948 he was employed by the defendant as its Secretary at a salary of Rs. 750/- per month on a confirmed basis. Subsequently the defendant granted a car allowance to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month over and above the plaintiffs salary. Before joining the defendant company the plaintiff was holding a responsible position under Messrs. Birla Brothers Ltd. The plaintiff left that service and joined the defendant solely on promises and assurances made by or on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiffs services under the defendant would be of a permanent nature continuing as long as the plaintiff remained in a fit state of health able to discharge the duties of his office satisfactorily. On 30-9-1954 the defendant wrongfully terminated the plaintiff's service with effect from 1-10-1954 and refused to allow the plaintiff to remain in service under the defendant any longer. Due to the wrongful conduct of the defendant the plaintiff has suffered damages assessed at Rs. 20,000/- which the defendant has not paid. The plaintiff has claimed in this suit a decree for Rs. 20,000/-; alternatively, assessment of damages and decree for the sum so ascertained and costs.
(2.) The defence, inter alia, is that there was no promise or assurance on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff s services would be of a permanent nature or that his services would continue as long as he remained in a fit state of health. The services of the plaintiff were duly terminated by a notice dated 30-9-1954. It is denied that the plaintiff has suffered any damages. In any event the damages claimed are exorbitant and excessive.
(3.) The following issues were raised: 1. Were any promises or assurances made or given on behalf of the defendant company that the plaintiffs service would be of a permanent nature as pleaded in paragraph 2 of the plaint? If so, what is the effect of such promises of assurances? 2. Was the termination of the plaintiff's service wrongful? 3. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?;


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