Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Gaurang Kanth, J.
T. S. Mokha – Appellant
Versus
Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. – Respondents
RFA 433 of 2015 and C.M. Nos. 21794 of 2018 & 3340 of 2019
Decided On : 12-05-2023
Termination - Employment Contract - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96, Order XLI - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 115 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 14(1)(c) - Service Rules - Clause 10, 14, 15 - Mitigation of Damages - Private Employment - Public Policy
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Deputy General Manager, was terminated from service by the Respondent Company. The appellant claimed that his termination was illegal as his service was extended until the age of 70 years. The Respondent Company argued that the extension letter was fabricated and the appellant's service was subject to the discretion of the management. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the appellant failed to prove the extension and that the Respondent Company lawfully retired him, compensating him with one month's salary.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the appellant failed to prove the authenticity of the extension letter and that the Respondent Company lawfully retired him, compensating him with one month's salary. The Court held that the appellant, being a private employee, had no inherent right to continue in service till the age of 70 years and was not entitled to any compensation or salary.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's termination was illegal and whether he was entitled to compensation or reinstatement.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the appellant failed to prove the authenticity of the extension letter and that the Respondent Company lawfully retired him, compensating him with one month's salary. The Court also held that the appellant, being a private employee, had no inherent right to continue in service till the age of 70 years and was not entitled to any compensation or salary.
Final Decision: The Court upheld the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, dismissing the appellant's suit and ruling in favor of the Respondent Company.
JUDGMENT
Gaurang Kanth, J.
1. The appellant (original plaintiff) has filed the instant Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2015 ("Impugned Judgment") passed by the learned Additional District Judge-06 (West), Tis Hazari courts, Delhi in Suit No. 106 of 2004 titled as `Shri T.S. Mokha Vs. Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd. and Anr.'.
2. The appellant had instituted the suit seeking a declaration that the letter dated 19.08.2003 (Ex. P-19) through which his services were terminated was illegal. The learned Trial Court, vide the Impugned Judgment, dismissed the suit and held that the appellant is not entitled to reinstatement or any future salary.
3. Before examining the relevant facts for the disposal of the present Appeal, this Court deems fit to dispose of CM No.3340/2019 wherein the appellant is seeking the change of name of Respondent No.1 from `Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd.'. to `Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd.'. This Court issued notice to the Respondents on 23.01.2019 but the Respondents have failed to file any response to the said Application. A perusal of the record shows a Board resolution dated 17.12.2004 filed by the Respondent Company indicating the change of name. Hence, the said Application filed by the appellant is allowed. The name of the Respondent is changed from `M/s Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd.' to `M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd.'. The amended memo of parties is taken on record.
FACTS RELEVANT FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL
4. The appellant joined the Respondent Company in the capacity of Deputy General Manager (A&P) vide appointment letter dated 30.05.1986 (Ex.P-7). On 31.01.1997, the appellant superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years in accordance with Clause 10 of the said appointment letter and Rule 14 of the Service Rules (Ex. DW1/P2) of the Respondent Company.
5. Allegedly, the appellant was provided a fresh contractual appointment by the Respondent Company vide letter dated 07.02.1997 (Ex. P-18). Relevant portion of alleged extension letter dated 07.02.1997 has been reproduced herein below:
"We are pleased to inform you' that you will be retired from the service of this company after completion of your 70 years of age and as such, clause 10 of your appointment letter dated May 30, 1986 stands amended to this extent."
6. On 19.08.2003, while serving as a Vice President (P&A), the appellant received a communication from the Respondent Company in the form of a letter dated 19.08.2003 (Ex. P-19), stating that the company had decided to retire the appellant from the service effective from the same date. At the time of retirement, the appellant was drawing a monthly emolument of Rs. 67,400/- which included a gross salary of Rs. 54,400/- per mensem and other benefits such as LTC, medical, cellphone etc. Relevant extract of the letter dated 19.08.2003 (Ex. P-19) is produced below:
"SUB: RETIREMENT
It has been decided to retire you from the service of our Company with effect from 19th August 2003. Accordingly, you will stand relieved of your responsibilities on the afternoon of the aforesaid date.
You are now, requested to hand over charge of your duties and Company's property, if any, to the concerned authorities and submit the required clearance certificate from all concerned enabling us to advise the Accounts Department to settle your account.
As regards your PF, you are advised to approach the concerned authorities directly.
We placed on record our appreciation of the services rendered by you to the Company and wish you a very happy long life.
For ANSAL PROPERTIES & INDUSTRIES LTD.
(AMITAV GANGULY)
ADDL. V.P. & CO. SECY."
7. The appellant objected to the aforesaid retirement and lodged a protest with the Respondent Company through a letter dated 23.08.2003 (Ex. P-20) and thereafter sent a legal notice dated 26.11.2003 (Ex. P-21) demanding withdrawal of the letter da
In private employment, employees do not have an inherent right to continue in service till a specified age, and the employer has the discretion to terminate the service as per the terms of the employ....
A suit for damages due to wrongful termination must include a declaration of wrongful termination to be maintainable; reinstatement cannot be granted without such a request.
Termination of a workman on a contractual basis may not constitute retrenchment if the employment is of a permanent nature, and unfair labor practices may warrant compensation instead of reinstatemen....
If misconduct is the foundation to pass the order, then an enquiry into misconduct should be conducted and an action according to law should follow. But if it is (sic) notice, it is not incumbent upo....
A non-statutory and determinable employment contract cannot be enforced through writ jurisdiction, and termination under such contracts, when following prescribed terms, is valid.
There is absolutely no requirement for the Corporation, where it treats an employee to have resigned his post under sub-Rule 13.3 of Rule 40 of the Services Rules, to pass an order terminating his se....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that re-employment must be substantive, not contractual, to entitle an ex-serviceman to pensionary benefits under the Central Civil Services (Pensi....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
