J U D G M E N T

Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2007 passed in A.S.No.492 of 2006 on the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2006 passed in O.S.No.6336 of 2003 on the file of the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial court.

3. The defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.6336 of 2003 are the appellants in this second appeal.

4. Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and damages.

5. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff joined in the defendants' company on 14.02.1994 as clerk and subsequently he passed the computer officer test conducted by the bank and promoted as officer scale-I with effect from 19.08.1996 and he was put on probation in the post of officer from 19.08.1996 and from 19.02.1997 he became a confirmed officer and on 01.04.2003, he was promoted as officer scale-II and as on date he has completed nine years nine months and twenty four days of continuous service. At the time of entering into service, there is no binding contract that the plaintiff should compulsorily serve in the defendants' bank for a minimum number of years of service. There was no contract or agreement to that effect. Hence, there is no impediment for the plaintiff to quit the present employment for his better prospects and for his career development at any time he likes and the plaintiff got an employment as product analyst in the Scope International Limited, Nungambakkam which would fetch him higher salary and also give him a wider scope for developing his career in the field of computer software. Therefore, the plaintiff submitted the resignation letter on 11.11.2003 and requested to relieve him from 22.11.2003. The Deputy General Manager, vide letter dated 17.11.2003 replied that the plaintiff has to work for three months and notice pay in lieu of three months could not be accepted. It was also stated that the plaintiff was one of the employees who was given the familiarization programme for 45 days and they would advise the plaintiff regarding the acceptance of the resignation shortly. However, if the plaintiff worked for three months in the defendants' bank, he would lose the opportunity of better employment and therefore not willing to take the risk and requested the bank to relieve him immediately from 29.11.2003. However, the defendants' company intimated the plaintiff to work compulsorily for three months. In such a situation, the plaintiff has to lose the better employment and on account of the defendants' bank not relieving him from duty as requested by way of the resignation, the plaintiff had been put on mental agony and frustration. The resignation and notice pay of the contract is governed by clause 7 of the appointment order dated 01.08.1996 which runs as follows:

Clause(7)

“ If you wish to leave the services after confirmation you may resign from the employment of the bank by giving three months notice in writing where such resignation is accepted by the bank you may be relieved on the expiry of such notice period or at any time earlier either accepting payment in lieu of notice period part there of or waiving part or whole of it at the discretion of the bank provided where any disciplinary proceedings/legal proceedings have been initiated the letter of resignation shall have no effect unless, it is accepted by the competent authority.

If you.......”

6. The plaintiff would further state that several persons of officer rank and below and above had been instantly relieved on payment of three months notice pay by invoking the abovesaid Clause No.7. However in the case of the plaintiff, the management has not properly used their discretion and they have not accepted the plaintiff's resignation immediately and it is a clear case of victimization and unfair labour practice and arbitrary act. In the reply letter dat