VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment dated 26.4.2002 passed by the Trial Court. By the impugned judgment, the suit of the deceased plaintiff (now represented by his legal heirs – appellants) for declaration and damages for wrongful termination of services was dismissed.

2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff joined the defendant No.1 / DCM Ltd. as a Clerk in the accounts section on 1.4.1960. As a benefit arising out of the employment, the plaintiff was let out quarter No.5, U.F. Mill Gate, DCM Quarters, DCM Road, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi in January 1975 and for which rent was being deducted by the respondent No.1. The plaintiff claims to have been promoted as an officer w.e.f. 1.1.1985 and was also honoured with a long service certificate on 21.4.1986. The plaintiff then pleaded that his services were assigned to another unit of the same group known as M/s. Shriram Industrial Enterprises Ltd. w.e.f. 1.4.1990. Plaintiff further pleaded that he was given increments in the job. It is then pleaded that a settlement was arrived at between the respondent No.1 and its workmen before this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2476/1988 on 1.10.1993 and as per which all the workmen were bound to vacate their quarters in their occupation by 31.10.1993. Disputes arose when the deceased plaintiff failed to vacate the quarter. The deceased plaintiff claimed that his services were sought to be terminated, not on account of any inefficiency on his part, but only as he refused to vacate the quarter. The services of the deceased plaintiff were terminated on 22.9.1993. The subject suit for declaration /injunction, therefore came to be filed in which a decree was also prayed for `4,99,116/- being the monetary claim for alleged illegal termination.

3. The respondent No.1 contested the suit and stated that the suit was filed as a counterblast to the company having initiated criminal proceedings against the deceased plaintiff. It was also pleaded that in spite of termination of the licence of the deceased plaintiff with respect to the quarter which he was occupying, the deceased plaintiff failed to vacate although he was bound by the judgment rendered by the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2476/1988. It was then pleaded by the respondent No.1 that the deceased plaintiff was given numerous opportunities to improve his performance and work and only on his failure to do so his services were terminated.

4. After completion of pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

“(i) Whether the pltf. is entitled to a decree in the sum of `4,99,116/- and if so, the rate of interest to which he is entitled? OPP

(ii) Whether the pltf. is entitled to a declaration that the letter dt.22.9.1993 terminating his service is illegal and void? OPP

(iii) Whether the plaint discloses no cause of action and is barred under the Specific Relief Act? OPD

(iv) Whether the suit has been filed as counterblast to the criminal proceedings initiating against the pltf? OPD (v) Relief.”

5. The main issues before the Trial Court were issues No.1 and 2 as to whether the services of the plaintiff were validly terminated. The Trial Court has held that the services of the deceased plaintiff were validly terminated by giving the following observations:

“I have considered the rival contentions. First of all it is to be seen by the Court whether the termination of the pltf. on 22.9.93 vide Ex.P6 was illegal and unjustified solely with a view to punish the pltf. for not vacating the quarter. The pltf. has admitted in his cross examination that deft. company instituted a complaint u/s 630 of Companies Act. Sec. 630 of Companies Act reads as under:-

“(1) If any officer or employee of a company – (a) wrongfully obtains possession of any property of a company; or (b) having any such property in his possess