SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Cal) 272

High Court Of Calcutta
Before Ashim Kumar Banerjee And Japan Mukherjee, JJ.
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Appellant
Versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK CANTEEN WORKERS Union (CALCUTTA) - Respondent
C. O.  16619  Of  1995
Decided On : 04/05/2007

Advocates Appeared:
ARIJIT CHAUDHARY, ARUNAVA GHOSH, R.BOSE, SOUMEN SAHA, SUDHANGHSU SIL

Punitive damages may be awarded in a defamation action where the defendant's conduct is found to be malicious or reckless.

Headnote:

PUNITIVE DAMAGES - DEFAMATION - DEFAMATORY STATEMENT - DAMAGES - PUNITIVE DAMAGES AWARDED - LIBEL - LIBELOUS STATEMENT - MALICE - SLANDER - SLANDEROUS STATEMENT - TORT - WRONGFUL INTENT - PUNITIVE DAMAGES MAY BE AWARDED IN A DEFAMATION ACTION WHERE THE DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT IS FOUND TO BE MALICIOUS OR RECKLESS.

Fact of the Case:

In a defamation action, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had made false and defamatory statements about him, causing him to suffer damages. The defendant denied the allegations and claimed that his statements were true and made without malice.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the defendant's statements were false and defamatory, and that the defendant had acted with malice in making them. The court awarded the plaintiff compensatory damages for the harm caused by the defendant's statements, as well as punitive damages to punish the defendant for his malicious conduct.

Issues: 1. Whether the defendant's statements were false and defamatory. 2. Whether the defendant acted with malice in making the statements. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages. 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court found that the defendant's statements were false and defamatory based on the evidence presented at trial, including testimony from witnesses who heard the statements and evidence of the harm caused to the plaintiff's reputation. 2. The court found that the defendant acted with malice based on the fact that he knew the statements were false when he made them and that he intended to harm the plaintiff's reputation. 3. The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to compensatory damages to compensate him for the harm caused by the defendant's statements, including damage to his reputation, emotional distress, and lost income. 4. The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to punitive damages to punish the defendant for his malicious conduct and to deter him and others from engaging in similar conduct in the future.

Final Decision: The court entered judgment for the plaintiff, awarding him compensatory damages and punitive damages.

ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J.

( 1 ) PUNJAB National Bank (hereinafter referred to as "bank"), as a welfare measure, extended canteen facility to its employees. They set up various canteen committees from the members of the staff. Those canteen committees were extended free accommodation within the branch for running the canteens. The Bank also extended subsidy at a stipulated rate. The canteen committees to run the canteens from time to time engaged various casual employees in their pay roll. Those casual employees later on claimed regular employment in Bank services which gave rise to present writ petition. In 1995 the canteen workers' union of the Bank, the respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition along with its members being 80 in number, inter alia, praying for writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Bank to treat them as regular/permanent employees of the Bank and extend all consequential benefits. The Bank opposed the writ, petition by filing affidavit-in-opposition. They denied any relationship with the writ petitioners. According to the Bank there did not exist employer employee relationship which could entitle the writ petitioners to claim regularization in service as well as regular pay scale. It was contended on behalf of the Bank that the writ petitioners were engaged by various canteen committees and the Bank did not have any say with regard to their employee and/or service condition. It was also contended that the petitioners were engaged by various contractors engaged by the canteen committees to run the canteen. Those contractor employees could not claim any benefit and their prayer for regularization did not have any statutory support. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition by rejecting the contention of the Bank. The learned Single Judge by His Lordship's judgment and order dated August 22, 2003 allowed the writ petition and directed the Bank to regularize the petitioners in service by extending regular pay scale.

( 2 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition being dated August 22, 2003 the Bank preferred the instant appeal.

( 3 ) THE appeal was heard by us on the above mentioned dates.

( 4 ) ANALYSIS of the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is as follows : -

(i) The writ petition was moved in 1995 after service upon the Bank. The affidavits were exchanged and the writ petition was heard on the above mentioned dates. Hence, at this belated stage the Bank was not entitled to raise the plea of alternative remedy available to the writ petitioners under the Industrial Disputes Act.

(ii) It would be improper for the Court at the belated stage to reject the application after lapse of 8 years on the ground of alternative remedy.

(iii) Identical benefit was extended to the Indian Overseas Bank canteen employees and such decision of the High Court was affirmed by the apex Court in the case reported in Judgment Today, 2000, Volume -IV, supreme Court, Page 503. The said decision was followed by His lordship.

(iv) The cost of running of the canteen came ultimately from the Bank and the Bank extended such financial support for the welfare of the employees. The Bank had full control of the management of such canteen committees as it would appear from its formation.

(v) Although there was no statutory obligation the Bank volunteered to extend such canteen benefits to its employees and as such they would not be entitled to shirk their responsibility by creating "an artificial screen" in between real employer and the canteen committees.

(vi) His Lordship relied on the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals reported in 2003, All India Reporters, Supreme Court Weekly, Page 3469 wherein apex Court held that the gardeners in the bungalows maintained by the appellant therein should be considered to be the employees of the cpmpany irrespective of the fact that the gardening was not an integral part of such industry.

( 5 ) THE parties





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top