JUDGMENT

Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral)

1. All the three appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment inasmuch as the issue in all the three appeals is same viz. whether the appellant in RFA No.180/04 Sh. Pawan Kumar Dalmia was or was not terminated from the services of the defendant No.1/respondent No.1-company-M/s. HCL Infosystems Ltd., and if there is termination of services, whether the services were validly terminated. The claim in the suit, which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment which is under challenge in RFA No.180/2004 was towards salary from June, 1999 till filing of the suit on 31.5.2002 on the ground that Sh. Pawan Kumar Dalmia was not validly terminated from services and therefore liability of defendant No.1/respondent No.1 towards payment of salary continues. The suit which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment which is the subject matter of RFA No.235/2004 was a suit filed by Mrs. Manju Dalmia, wife of Sh. Pawan Kumar Dalmia, making Sh. Pawan Kumar Dalmia as plaintiff No.2 claiming that the premises belonging to the wife-Mrs. Manju Dalmia were taken on self-lease, and since the services of Sh. Pawan Kumar Dalmia are not terminated or not legally terminated, liability to pay the rental charges for the premises taken on self-lease of house No.F-106, Prashant Vihar, Delhi-85 continues. I am using the expression "self-lease" because the plaintiff No.1/appellant No.1 is the wife of plaintiff No.2/appellant No.2/employee and for whom the premises were taken on lease by the defendant No.1/respondent No.1. The impugned judgment which is the subject matter of RFA No.239/2004 dismissed the suit of the wife of Sh. Pawan Kumar Dalmia wherein she claimed that since the services were not validly terminated, the Maruti Zen Car continued to be on hire and thus the hire charges for such car were liable to be paid as Sh. Pawan Kumar Dalmia continued to be legally employed and for which employment the car was taken on hire by the defendant No.1/respondent No.1.

2. For the sake of convenience, reference is made to the facts which are subject matter of RFA No.180/2004, and which is the main suit filed by the employee-Sh. Pawan Kumar Dalmia. The facts of the case are that the appellant-Sh. Pawan Kumar Dalmia was appointed as a Company Secretary-cum-Manager (legal) by the defendant No.1/respondent No.1-company under an appointment letter dated 1.2.1993 (Ex.PW1/1). The appellant was appointed as a Company Secretary-cum-Manager (Legal) on the terms and conditions of this appointment letter dated 1.2.1993. Some of the relevant terms of this appointment letter are contained in para 20 of the impugned judgment. Besides other terms, one term of appointment is clause No.11 which provides that services of the appellant can be terminated by serving a two months' notice or without any notice if the appellant is found guilty of misconduct. The appellant pleaded that in February, 1999, he was told that he would be given a special assignment by the company and therefore he was not required to attend the office on day to day basis. It was further stated in the plaint by the appellant that his new assignment will be told to him in due course and the legal and secretarial work assigned to him was withdrawn. The payment of salary of the appellant/plaintiff was stopped from May, 1999. The appellant/plaintiff claimed that his services were not terminated by the defendant No.1/respondent No.1-company and he continued to be in employment with the defendant No.1/respondent No.1-company. It was pleaded by the appellant that his appointment was a 'statutory appointment' and therefore unless the same is statutorily terminated, he continued to be in service. The appellant/plaintiff claims to have served a legal notice dated 9.6.2001 and thereafter filed the subject suit for recovery of Rs. 12,80,036/- alongwith the claim of interest. I may state that in the suit which is the subject matter of RFA No.239/2004, the amount claimed is Rs