The court emphasized the importance of proper notice in termination of services and awarded damages for unpaid salary and car-related expenses based on the terms of the employment contract.

Jayant Nath, J.

1. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of declaration and damages. As per the plaint the plaintiff was employed by defendant No.1 in its hotel, namely, Hotel Ramada Plaza at the post of General Manager vide contract letter dated 10.10.2007. Defendant No.2 is said to be a director of defendant No.1. Defendant No.3 is the younger brother of defendant No.2 who is said to have taken over the control of defendant No.1 with effect from 14.01.2009.

2. It is averred that the plaintiff officially joined the Hotel on 15.11.2007 at the post of General Manager and continued to work till 02.01.2009.

3. As per the plaint the plaintiff was entitled to receive salary of Rs.18 lacs per annum for the first six months and thereafter at the rate of Rs.24 lacs per annum. Further it is averred that the plaintiff was to be paid a monthly sum of Rs.1.50 lacs in cash as incentive for the first six months and a sum of Rs.2 lacs per month in cash as incentive thereafter.

4. It is further averred that the plaintiff went on leave from 26.12.2008 till 01.01.2009. On 02.01.2009 when the plaintiff joined back his duties, the plaintiff was called by defendant No.2 and was orally asked to resign from the job as General Manager. It is averred that no reasons were assigned and the plaintiff was asked to leave the office abruptly. The plaintiff could not even take his original papers lying in the office containing important documents, bills, etc. The plaintiff returned the laptop and the company car provided to the plaintiff was also taken away forcibly.

5. It is the contention of the plaintiff that various dues have not been paid. A part of the salary was stated to be not paid. The cash incentive was said to have been paid very infrequently and at the whims and fancy of defendant No.2 and has not been paid in full. It is further averred that though the plaintiff was provided a car as agreed, he was not provided a driver and even the fuel was provided subject to a ceiling limit of 200 litres in a month whereas the plaintiff had to incur expenses of above 200 litres of petrol in a month. It is further averred that the plaintiff was entitled to medical bills and medical insurance which has not been paid. Statutory benefits of provident fund have also not been deducted. The statement of alleged dues of the plaintiff is attached as Schedule-I to the plaint (Ex.PW-1/9). The same reads as follows:-

SCHEDULE-I

STATEMENT OF PENDING DUES OF SHRI DINESH CHADHA, GENERAL MANAGER, HOTEL RAMADA PLAZA.

6. On the basis of the above averment, the plaintiff seeks a decree of declaration declaring that the termination of his services is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the terms of the employment and principles of natural justice, a decree of declaration declaring that the plaintiff shall be deemed to be in service of the defendants and for consequential orders of reinstatement with full back wages and other dues and a decree of damages for a sum of Rs.25 lacs to be paid jointly or severally by the defendants.

7. Defendants No.1 and 3 filed their written statement claiming that the senior staff working with defendant No.1 at the relevant point of time, on inquiry informed that the plaintiff was not discharging his duties well and was having a highly unprofessional attitude. It is further averred that an oral notice of termination of three months on 01.10.2008 was given to the plaintiff. It is averred that due to improper, unprofessional and negligent conduct of the plaintiff whereby the hotel company suffered a lot, the salary of the plaintiff for the month of December 2008 has been forfeited. The claim of the plaintiff for cash incentive has been denied stating that defendants No.1 and 3 were not a party to any such alleged understanding inasmuch as earlier the hotel was under the control of defendant No.2. It is further averred that even if any such understanding was arrived at, the same is illegal and against public policy an