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.

JUDGMENT :

1. Feeling aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 13.09.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Bank Cases, Jammu (for short Trial Court) whereby Trial Court while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein, has declared his dismissal from appellant-bank as illegal and plaintiff declared entitled to be reinstated as also entitled to damages, the appellant bank has preferred this civil first appeal.

2. The trial Court decree is challenged by the appellant-bank on the following grounds:-

(a) Impugned judgment and decree is bad both in law and on facts.

(b) Trial Court has proceeded on the assumption that the dismissal of the respondent was wrongful without there being any case of the respondent therefor. The suit was simpliciter recover of damages. The trial Court, unmindful of the frame of the suit which was simpliciter as suit for recovery, went to the extent of allowing reinstatement of the respondent not ever prayed for.

(c) The evidence has been misread and misappreciated by trial Court in decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent.

(d) The trail court has proceeded to deal with the matter on ill-founded compassion, non-existent records, unproved facts and in turn has omitted to take into account proven case of the appellant bank justifying the order of dismissal of the respondent.

(e) Many issues framed in the suit have gone undetermined or determination thereof is only a cosmetic one, whereas taking into account the pleadings, their determination was indispensable and which rather required a conscious determination to arrive at the rights of the parties conclusively.

3. As record would demonstrate, plaintiff/respondent filed a suit before the Trial Court, stating therein that he joined defendant-bank as an Accountant on 25.02.1970. After nine months, he was given a chance to officiate as a Manager of the New Bank of India Ltd., Jammu Branch, and was confirmed in the same capacity on 01.05.1971. In recognition of the efforts and efficient and smooth working of the branch, the defendant-bank was pleased to accord special cash reward/increments for promoting the interests of the bank by way of mobilising of deposits and making advances during the years 1971, 1972 and 1973. He also worked at the Srinagar Branch from September 1974 to 10^th of February 1975, and during this period, he brought the working of the branch on smooth base set of the branch routine in the proper manner. He was driving a total sum of Rs. 1,944/- per month.

4. It was also the case of plaintiff before the Trial Court that in the month of December 1974, he was approached by Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd., Kanpur, to work as an agent for the proposed new branch at Jammu. He was reluctant to leave his service in view of his past association. On 8 January 1975, he wrote a personal D.O. letter to the Chairman of the defendant bank, requesting him to make him in charge of both the branches at Jammu and Srinagar, in accordance with the discussion they had at Delhi. After waiting for a considerable time and having received no reply from the defendant, the plaintiff resigned from the service of the bank on 28.01.1975, and sent the resignation letter to the defendant, thereby giving one month’s notice as required according to the service conditions of the Bank.

5. It was also stated by plaintiff in his plaint that appointment letter issued by the defendant in his favour stipulated that either party could terminate employment by giving one month’s notice to quit. No other written conditions of the service were conveyed to the plaintiff nor do they exist. As he got a better offer, he resigned from the service and wrote a letter of resignation by asking them to treat it as notice and he be relieved from service. The period of one month expired on or about 1^st of March 1975.

6. The defendant-bank through its General Manager vide letter no. STF/TRF/1611 dated 04.02.1975 directed the plaintiff to hand over the charge of Srinagar Branch to Sh. J.M. T