The main legal point established in the judgment is that an employee wrongfully terminated from service is entitled to recover wrongfully deducted amounts, arrears of salary, and damages for wrongful termination, and the court has the discretion to award suitable compensation after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case.

V.K. JAIN, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2003, whereby a decree for recovery of Rs. 8,81,667/- with proportionate costs and pendente lite and future interest @ 10% per annum was passed in favour of the respondent and against the appellants. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal can be summarized as under:-

The respondent/plaintiff was employed as a Nursery/KG teacher with appellant No. 1 St. Johns School, which is being run and managed by appellant No. 2 Delhi Mar Thoma Church Society. The services of the plaintiff/respondent were terminated with effect from 01.10.2001. The case of the plaintiff/respondent is that though her salary was Rs.7331/- per month, the appellants/defendants were wrongfully and illegally deducting a sum of Rs 2706/- per month from her salary and when she protested against such deduction, the defendants/appellants threatened to terminate her services. A sum of Rs 64,896/- was deducted from her salary in this manner, in about 24 months. This was also her case that on a strong protest by her in July-August, 2001, the defendants/appellants offered her a package of 05 month salary in case she submitted her resignation. They also threatened her to resign or else they would terminate her services, in case the offer was not accepted by her. According to the plaintiff/respondent, she refused to resign as a result of which she was not allowed to take classes with effect from 01.08.2001 and subsequently her services were terminated with effect from 01.10.2001. She accordingly claimed Rs 64,896/- being the amount wrongfully deducted from her services, Rs 21,993/- as arrears of salary, Rs 7,18,438/- on account of damages for illegal and wrongful termination of her services and Rs 50,000/- on account of damages for mental sufferings.

2. The defendants/appellants filed written statement contesting the suit. They took a preliminary objection that the contract of service, being personal in nature, was not enforceable. They also claimed that the suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure since damages were not claimed by the plaintiff/respondent in an earlier suit which she had withdrawn. As regards deductions made from the salary of the plaintiff/respondent, they alleged that the plaintiff/respondent was making a voluntary donation of Rs 2706/- per month and there was no pressure on her to make such donation. They also disputed their liability to pay any arrears of amount and also denied having caused any mental agony to the plaintiff/respondent. They also claimed that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action.

3. The following issues were framed by the learned Trial Judge on the pleadings of the parties:-

i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs 64,902/- on account of wrongful deduction from her salary? OPP

ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs 21,993/- on account of arrears of unpaid salary? OPP

iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Rs 7,18,438/- on account of damages for illegal termination of her services? OPP

iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs 50,000/- on account of damages for causing mental torture? OPP

v. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest from the defendants? If so, at what rate, on what amount and for what period? OPP

vi. Whether the claim of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for disclosing no cause of action? OPD

vii. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC? OPD

viii. Relief.

Issue No. 2

4. As far as salary for the month of August, 2001 is concerned, as noted by the learned Trial Judge even in the written statement, the defendants/appellants did not dispute their liability to pay the said amount. This liability has not been disputed even in the evidence produced by the appellants/defendants. As regards salary for the month of September, 2001, the case of the defendants/appellants is that the plaintiff/