J L TOPPO Vs. TATA LOCOMOTIVE AND ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Jamshedpur, dated 10th December, 1955, dismissing his suit for damages for wrongful dismissal.

(2.) The material facts, not in dispute, are these. On 7th February, 1947, the plaintiff was employed by the Tata Locomotive and Engineering Company Ltd. the defendant, as a Material Checker on a monthly salary of Rs. 40/- in the scale of Rs. 40-5-60. On 8th June, 1948, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Ward Keeper on a salary of Rs. 75 per month, in the grade pay of Rs. 75-5-100 which, on account of the revision of the wage structure in 1949, was refixed at Rs. 85-5-100, and from 8th June, 1949, the plaintiff was drawing a salary of Rs. 85 per month, besides dearness allowance of Rs. 8/87- and emergency bonus and food rebate of Rs. 10 per month. On 8th August, 1949, two tons of Mild Steel Rods of half inch diameter disappeared from his custody. The plaintiff's case was that Kundan Singh Bedi, the contractor, urgently required the iron rods in connection with the work of the defendant and that Mr. Sharma, his agent, took away those iron rods. This aroused the suspicion of Mr. J. Winfield, Inspector-in-charge Watch and Ward, and he investigated into the matter. It transpired during the investigation that Kundan Singh Bedi had no contract work since after 4th August, 1949, and had not been authorised to draw the said iron rods, and that the plaintiff made over the iron rods to Mr. Sharma without authority. Mr. Winfield accordingly submitted a report on 9th August, 1949 (Ext. K). On the same day, that is, 9th August, 1949, Mr. Rao, Stores Controller, by a letter dated: 9/10th August, 1949 (Ext. A1) detailing the circumstances of the loss of the iron rods, asked the plaintiff to explain under what circumstances the materials (iron rods) were issued from his sub-stores-which, as he was aware, were only meant for the use of the Resident Engineer and not any other department of the defendant. The plaintiff submitted his explanation on nth August, 1949 (vide Ext. A2). He admitted that he had made over the iron rods to Mr. Sharma without proper authority and pleaded good faith and concluded his explanation in these words :

(3.) On 22nd April, 1954, the plaintiff instituted the present suit to recover from the defendant Rs. 8370 as damages on the ground that in view of his acquittal by the High Court, his dismissal was wrongful, illegal and without any reasonable cause.