(I) Mrs. Duli Murmu vs Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 10358 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

(I) Mrs. Duli Murmu vs Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company ... on 12 November, 2024

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                    F.A. No. 181 of 2007

                     1. (i) Mrs. Duli Murmu, wife (widow) of Late Kumar Krishna
                        Murmu
                        (ii) Joshen Kumar Murmu son of Late Kumar Krishna Murmu
                        (iii) Maisha Mahesh Kumar Murmu, son of late Kumar Krishna
                        Murmu
                        Serial no.(i) to (iii) are resident of P.O. Karandih, P.S. Parsudih,
                        District East Singhbhum
                        (iv) Mrs. Lakhi Hembrom (daughter) of late Kumar Krishna
                        Murmu, resident of Kalyandih, P.O. Bitapur, P.S. Kharsawan,
                        District Saraikela Kharsawan
                     2. Sima Das Gupta, widow of Late Mrinal Das Gupta, resident of
                        Qr. No.66/T, Indra Nagar, P.O. P.S. Telco, Town Jamshedpur,
                        District Singhbhum East ...           ...     Plaintiffs/Appellants
                                               Versus
                     Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Limited (Now Tata
                     Motors Ltd.) a Joint Stock Company, registered under Companies
                     Act having its works and office at Jamshedpur, P.O. P.S. Telco,
                     Town Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum East.
                                               ...        ...        Defendant/Respondent
                                               ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

                For the Appellants          : Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate
                For the Respondent          : Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate
                                            ---
14/12.11.2024

The original plaintiffs have expired and they are being represented by their legal representatives before this Court.

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 18.07.2007 and decree signed on 28.07.2007 passed by learned Sub- Judge I, Jamshedpur in Money Suit No.13 of 1999, whereby the learned court has refused to grant the relief of compensation claimed by the plaintiffs amounting to Rs. 50,00,000/-.

3. As per the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff no.1 as well as the plaintiff no.2 were ex-employees of the defendant and they were terminated by the defendant when they were remanded to judicial custody. However, they were ultimately acquitted by the court. It is their further case that initially, a case was filed before the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur seeking relief of reinstatement, consequential relief and challenging the order of termination. However, such relief was denied to the ex-employees involved in the present case. Ultimately, the relief was granted to them in CWJC No.140 of 1978(R) by the High Court wherein they were reinstated with back wages, including other reliefs. Against the said judgment of the High Court, Special Leave Petition being 7145-46 of 1983 was also dismissed and the plaintiff No.1 and husband of the Plaintiff No. 2 were to be reinstated. It was further case of the Plaintiffs that Plaintiff No.1 and the husband of Plaintiff No.2 rejoined the service and the Plaintiff No.1 retired after 2 years and, so far as the husband of Plaintiff No.2 is concerned, he died within 2 days after rejoining his service due to weak health.

4. It was alleged that the Plaintiff No.1 and the husband of Plaintiff No.2 both suffered continuously for 26 years and 6 months due to mental agony and torture and also suffered defamation in the society. They suffered starvation, lack of education and medical facilities and also defamatory action made by the officials of the defendant company, who were under legal obligation to provide them medical and education facilities by way of reimbursement, but no such facility was provided. As a consequence of the actions of the defendant company, the plaintiffs suffered irreparable loss, and the careers of their children were ruined. Furthermore, due to the lack of medical facilities provided by the defendant company, the deceased husband of the Plaintiff no.2 was unable to receive proper medical treatment and passed away within two days of rejoining his service.

5. It was their specific case that they suffered on account of action of the defendant by which the Plaintiff No.1 and the husband of plaintiff no.2 were terminated from service and hence they were required to be compensated by giving Rs.50,00,000/-. A legal notice was also sent, but no response was received and consequently the case was filed vide Money Suit No.13 of 1999.

6. On the other hand, as per the written statement filed by the defendant, the suit was not maintainable and there was no cause of action. It was also alleged that the suit was barred by the provisions of

Specific Relief Act, as well as by the principles of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence. It was also alleged that the suit was barred under the provision of Bihar State Weaker Section, Legal Aid Act, 1983 as by virtue of Legal Aid Act, the plaintiff no.1 got exemption from court fees suppressing his truth financial status. It was further case of the defendant that plaintiff no.2 was not financially weak and he was required to pay the ad valorem court fees, as no certificate for exemption was granted to Plaintiff No.2. The details of various payments made to the Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 were also mentioned in the plaint. A plea was also taken that the other legal heirs of Mrinal Das Gupta, the ex-employee, were not made party in the proceeding.

7. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, the defendant specifically took a plea that the termination was not wrong and the plaintiffs did not suffer any loss and injury. It was also pointed out that one MJ Case No.16 of 1998 under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was filed before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court claiming the relief arising out of the order passed by the High Court and therefore the claim in the suit was not maintainable. It was also averred that the medical facilities were available to the employees and their family members, who were on the roll of the company and there was no such provision for payment of any medical expenses to an employee who was not on roll. Similarly educational allowance was also payable to employee on his declaration that none of his children were studying in company aided school but were studying in other school and no such declaration was made and the claim of education allowance was also denied.

8. It was further averred that the claim of medical and education benefits was made in the petition filed under Section 33 C (2) of Industrial Dispute Act before the Labour Court in MJ Case No.168 of 1998, and therefore, no such relief could be granted by the learned court in the money suit. It was also averred that the service of Plaintiff No.1 and husband of the Plaintiff No.2 were terminated due to long absence from duty and defendant did not defame them and did not debar them with any wages for which they were legally entitled and it was asserted that entire claim was imaginary and hypothetical, whimsical and baseless.

9. The learned court framed the following issues for consideration:

           I.      "Is the suit as framed maintainable?
         II.      Whether the plaintiffs have valid cause of action for the suit?
        III.      Whether the suit is barred by the principle of estoppel, waiver and
                  acquiescence?
        IV.       Whether the suit has been properly valued and proper court fee is
                  paid by the plaintiffs?
         V.       Whether the defendant company has committed a tort of malicious

prosecution against the plaintiff no.1 and husband of plaintiff no.2 and where their reputation in society is lowered down so as to be compensated by awarding damages?

VI. Whether during termination from service for about 26 ½ years plaintiff no.1 and husband of plaintiff no.2 sustained such mental torture for which they are entitled for compensation by way of damages?

VII. Whether the cause of death of husband of plaintiff no.2 in course of employment is due to any negligence of defendant company in providing medical facilities during period of termination and for that whether any damages is required to be awarded?

VIII. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any other relief or reliefs?"

10. The plaintiffs led four witnesses and filed documentary evidences namely carbon copy of legal notice dated 08.02.1999 (Exhibit 1) and postal receipt dated 10.02.1999 (Exhibit 2). The defendant led only one oral evidence examined as DW 1 and also filed certified copy of the order dated 18.01.2006 passed in MJ Case No.16 of 1998 which was marked as Exhibit-A.

11. The learned court first decided Issue No.V which was decided against the plaintiffs. So far as Issue Nos.VI and VII are concerned, the learned court held that Plaintiff No.1 and the husband of Plaintiff No.2 did not sustain any mental torture for which they could be compensated by awarding damages and also held that the cause of death of husband of plaintiff no.2 was not due to negligence of the defendant company in providing medical facilities during the period of termination and for that no damage was required to be awarded and both the issues were decided against the plaintiffs.

12. So far as the Issue No.III is concerned, the same was not pressed by the defendant and was decided in favour of the plaintiffs.

13. With regard to Issue No.IV, the learned court decided it in favour of the plaintiffs.

14. So far as the Issue Nos.I and II are concerned, the learned court held that Issue Nos.V, VI and VII having been decided against the plaintiffs and it was found that the plaintiffs had not suffered any injury by act of the

management of the defendant company for which they were required to be compensated by awarding damages, and therefore, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendant company had violated any terms and conditions of service by making termination of Plaintiff No.1 and of that of the husband of Plaintiff No.2 with any intention to lower down the reputation of the Plaintiff No.1 and husband of Plaintiff No.2. It was also observed that the plaintiffs had not adduced any evidence on the basis of which their claim of compensation could be computed reasonably and have not proved that they suffered any civil wrong and ultimately held that the suit for damages as claimed was not maintainable and plaintiffs had no cause of action for the suit. The Issue Nos.I and II were decided against the plaintiffs.

15. As a result of the aforesaid findings with regard to different issues, the suit was ultimately dismissed.

16. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs - appellants has assailed the judgment by submitting that the Plaintiff No.1 and the husband of Plaintiff No.2 were taken into judicial custody on account of which they were terminated by the defendant but ultimately, they were acquitted by the criminal court. In such circumstances, the action of the defendant in termination of the ex-employees was without any basis which resulted in the fact that they remained out of service for 26 years and 6 months and suffered mental agony, torture, defamation and their families suffered on account of education and medical facilities. He has also submitted that the very fact that the husband of petitioner no.2 expired within two days from the date of joining, is enough to indicate that he suffered on account of lack of medical facilities extended to him from the side of the defendant company and therefore, and in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the plaintiffs were entitled for the compensation as claimed by them, that is, to the extent of Rs. 50 lakhs.

17. The learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that the Issue No.V, as framed by the learned court would be the point of determination by this Court also as the entire relief is based on determination of Issue No. V.

18. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the defendant- respondent, has opposed the prayer and submitted that even the judgment of acquittal was not placed before the court. She has also submitted that no

case of malicious prosecution was made out and merely because the ex- employees were acquitted in the criminal case, they were not entitled for any damages. She has also submitted that the ex-employees were terminated way back in the year 1970 and after being acquitted and being released from judicial custody, they filed case before the Presiding Officer, Jamshedpur challenging the order of termination, which was initially refused by the Labour Court, and consequently, there was no occasion for the respondent to take them back in service. However, relief was granted to them by High Court in the writ petition filed where they were directed to be reinstated with all consequential reliefs with the back wages and the matter was ultimately decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and immediately thereafter, they were taken in service.

19. The learned counsel has submitted that no case for damages was made out and the appellants were already pursuing their relief under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, whose final judgment was exhibited before the learned court.

20. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellants. the point for determination by this Court is Issue No.V as framed by the learned trial court .

"Whether the defendant company committed a tort of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff no.1 and husband of plaintiff no.2 and whether their reputation in society was lowered down so as to compensate by awarding damages."

21. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that although the plaintiffs raised a plea of malicious prosecution, which was primarily based on the fact that they were ultimately acquitted by the Criminal Court, but even the judgment passed by the Criminal Court acquitting them was not exhibited by the plaintiffs before the court. This Court is of the considered view that merely because a person is subjected to criminal case and is ultimately acquitted, the same does not occasion to give any finding of malicious prosecution. The learned court, while deciding the aforesaid issue vide Issue No.V had clearly held that the plaintiffs did not produce any documentary evidence in support of their case and has also held that the basic ingredients for coming to a finding of malicious prosecution was not produced or proved. The learned court also held that for want of judgment

or the copy of the FIR, it could not be said that the criminal case was instituted without any reasonable or probable cause. The learned court also discussed the testimony of PW4. The finding of the learned court with respect to Issue No.V is quoted as under:

"ISSUE NO.V

7. It is averred in the plaint that due to false prosecution in a criminal case and termination from service plaintiff no.1 and husband of plaintiff no.2 detained in judicial custody and their reputation is lower down in the society. So, in order to establish the alleged civil wrong of malicious prosecution committed by the defendant company plaintiff has to prove following facts:-

I. That he has prosecuted by the defendant company II. That the proceedings complaint was terminated in favour of the plaintiff, if from its nature it was capable of so terminating III. That the prosecution was initiated against him without any reasonable or probable cause IV. That the prosecution was initiated with a malicious intention that not with mere intention of carrying the law into effect but with an intention which was wrongfully in point of fact V. That he has sufferer damage to his reputation.

8. Plaintiffs have not produced any documentary evidence in support of their case. They have also not filed the judgment of their acquittal in the said criminal case in which they have remained in judicial custody. So, in want of said judgment or copy of FIR it cannot be said that said criminal case was instituted by defendant Co. &v that too without any reasonable or probable cause. Further, the plaintiff has not stated anything in his oral testimony i.e. P.W.4 to establish that the defendant company has initiated the said prosecution with an intention which was wrongful in point of fact and not with an intention to put law in motion. Thus, only since the criminal case against the plaintiff no.1 and husband of plaintiff no.2 was ended into acquittal and they were reinstated in service it cannot be inferred that the said prosecution and termination was done was instituted with malicious intention. Further, there is also no cogent evidence to establish that due to such prosecution & termination the reputation of the plaintiff no.1 and husband of plaintiff no.2 was lower down in the society.

On the basis of aforesaid discussion I find and hold that plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendant company has committed a civil wrong of malicious prosecution which caused injury to the reputation of the plaintiffs and for that they required to be compensated by award of damages. As such s I find and hold that defendant company has not committed a tort of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff no.l and husband of plaintiff no.2 and also their reputation has not been lowered down by such prosecution and termination as such they need not be compensated by award of any damages. Accordingly, this issue is decided in negative."

22. This Court has gone through the materials on record and also the findings recorded by the learned court and is of the considered view that in

absence of the FIR, and also the judgment of acquittal, there was no occasion for the court to come to a conclusion of malicious prosecution of the plaintiff no.1 and husband of the plaintiff no.2 and consequently the malicious prosecution was not proved at all by any stretch of imagination. The learned counsel for the appellants has also not pointed out any material which has not been considered by the learned court to come to the finding in connection with Issue No.V.

23. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that so far as the Issue No. V is concerned, the learned court has rightly come to a conclusion and decided the same against the plaintiffs. There is no such material and no such argument has been advanced before this Court to come to a different finding as what has been considered and recorded by the learned court. Rather the judgment passed by the learned court is a well-reasoned judgement considering every aspect of the matter.

24. So far as the Issues No.VI and Issue No.VII are concerned, this Court finds that the plaintiffs had remained out of employment since 1970 and were reinstated later. Even the case filed before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur challenging their order of termination was decided against them and ultimately the relief was granted only in the writ petition which attained finality by virtue of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Even the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, judgement passed by the High Court and the judgment passed by learned labour court were not exhibited before the trial court in the present case. The only document which was exhibited was the certified copy of the order passed in MJ Case No.16 of 1998 by the defendant. In view of the fact that the Plaintiff No. 1 and husband of Plaintiff No.2 were not on the roll of the company, there was no occasion for the company to extend any service benefit or medical facilities to them. Further, no documentary evidences were produced before the court regarding their treatment or their ailment.

25. This Court finds that the learned court, after considering the materials, decided the issues as mentioned above. During the course of arguments, no illegality with regard to findings recorded by the learned Court has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants.

26. Thus, the point of determination as framed is decided against the appellants and in favour of the respondent and the findings of the learned trial court are upheld.

27. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, the point of determination having been decided against the appellants and the other issues framed by the learned court having been decided in accordance with law, this Court finds no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.

28. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav/