Madras High Court
Benjamin Theogaraj vs M/S.G.D.A.Security (P) Ltd on 2 February, 2021
S.A.No.1415 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
S.A.No.1415 of 2008
Benjamin Theogaraj
No.9, Umayal Road,
Kilpauk,
Chennai-10. ... Appellant
Vs.
M/s.G.D.A.Security (P) Ltd.,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Branch Office at Agurchand Mansion,
152, Mount Road,
Chennai-2. ... Respondent
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the
judgment and Decree dated 16.09.2003 in A.S.No.64 of 2003 on the file of
the V Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai, confirming the judgment and
decree dated 20.08.2001 in O.S.No.14451 of 1996 on the file of the IV
Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1415 of 2008
For Appellant : Mr.P.Sidharthan
For Respondent : No appearance- Set exparte
*****
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree
dated 16.09.2003 passed in A.S.No.64 of 2003 on the file of the V
Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and
decree dated 20.08.2001 passed in O.S.No.14451 of 1996 on the file of the
IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court. At
the time when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation
for the respondent, the respondent being called, remaining absent, set
exparte.
3. The suit has been laid for directing the defendant to render proper
accounts to the plaintiff to ascertain the amount lawfully due to the plaintiff
under various benefits in respect of his services in the defendant's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1415 of 2008
organization between the periods 01.01.1980 to 04.10.1993 and direct the
defendant to pay the quantified amount as ascertained after such rendition of
account to the plaintiff together with interest thereon at 18% per annum
from 04.10.1993 till date of payment.
4. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.14451 of 1996 is the
appellant in the second appeal.
5. According to the plaintiff, he was appointed as the Administrative
Manager of the defendant's branch at Coimbatore on the basis of the
consolidated salary of Rs.1,500/- per month with effect from 01.01.1980
and subsequently, he was transferred to the Madras Branch Office of the
defendant as the Branch Manager with effect from 25.06.1981 and later
promoted as Regional Manager and thereafter as General Manager and he
has discharged his duties to the satisfaction of the defendant and he was
given various benefits for the services rendered by him such as group
gratuity, life assurance scheme, Provident fund and other benefits and
necessary contributions were also collected from the plaintiff periodically.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1415 of 2008
Due to certain differences between the plaintiff and the defendant's
company, without attributing any reason, the defendant terminated the
services of the plaintiff from the company with effect from 04.10.1993 and
the plaintiff was also directed to deliver the possession of the residential
accommodation provided to him by the company and the plaintiff sent
several letters to the defendant to settle his dues over a period of 15 years
for the services rendered by him and the defendant has failed to respond to
the same and hence according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to
lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.
6. The defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit by putting forth the case
that the plaintiff was an employee under the defendant's company. The case
projected by him that he was discharging his duties satisfactorily is false
and on account of the malpractice committed by the plaintiff, a police
complaint was lodged against him and criminal proceeding was also
initiated for which the plaintiff had been convicted and further putforth that
the defendant has not withheld any payment due to the plaintiff and if at all
the plaintiff has any claim qua provident fund contribution etc., he has to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1415 of 2008
approach appropriate authority for the refund of the same and the defendant
has nothing to do with reference to the same and with reference to the
gratuity, for the said purpose, the plaintiff has to apply to the appropriate
authority at New Delhi for settlement of his dues qua the gratuity and in
such view of the matter, according to the defendant, without approaching
the appropriate authorities, the suit has been hastily filed by the plaintiff
against the defendant, hence according to the defendant, the plaintiff is not
entitled to any rendition of the accounts for the dues to him for the services
rendered in defendant's company and hence the suit is liable to be
dismissed.
7. This suit along with another suit laid by the defendant's company in
O.S.No.13983 of 1986 were disposed of by the trial court by way of a
common judgment. It is further noted that common evidence was recorded
in both the suits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1415 of 2008
8. In the suit laid by the plaintiff in O.S.No.14451 of 1996, in support
of the plaintiff's case P.W.1 was examined. Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On
the side of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined. Exs.B1 to B16 were
marked.
9. On an appreciation of the materials placed on record, both oral and
documentary and the submissions putforth by the respective parties, the trial
court was pleased to dismiss the plaintiff's suit in O.S.No.14451 of 1996
and decreed the suit laid by the company in O.S.No.13983 of 1986.
Impugning the judgment and decree passed in the suit laid by him, the
plaintiff preferred the first appeal in A.S.No.64 of 2003 on the file of the V
Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The first appellate court also,
on an appreciation of the materials placed on record and the submissions
putforth by the respective parties, was pleased to dismiss the appeal
preferred by the plaintiff. Challenging the same, the second appeal has been
preferred by the plaintiff.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1415 of 2008
10. Considering the submissions putforth by the respective parties
and the materials placed on record, it is seen that the plaintiff has been
under the services of the defendant's company in various capacities and at
one point of time, his service had been terminated for the malpractice
committed by the plaintiff in discharge of his duties. The plaintiff's claim is
that he is entitled for the service benefits and accordingly seeking for the
rendition of accounts, with reference to the same, the plaintiff has come
forward with the present suit. As rightly concluded by the Courts below,
with reference to the provident fund and gratuity, the plaintiff has laid the
suit for recovery of the amount due to him. For calculating the said amount
vis-a-vis, the service rendered by the plaintiff, it is not necessary on the part
of the defendant to render any accounts. As rightly concluded by the Courts
below, for the amount due to him under the provident fund claim, the
plaintiff has to approach the appropriate authority and similarly for working
out his claim for getting gratuity amount due to him, as contended by the
defendant's counsel, the plaintiff has to approach the appropriate authority
at New Delhi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1415 of 2008
11. As rightly concluded by the Courts below, the plaintiff not being
a workman under the defendant's company and also the plaintiff not an
agent of the defendant, in all, the claim of the plaintiff that the defendant's
company should render accounts to enable him to seek the refund of the
amount due to him under the provident fund contribution and gratuity as
such cannot be countenanced. As rightly concluded by the Courts below for
the said relief, it is for the plaintiff to move the appropriate authorities
concerned. The plaintiff without approaching the appropriate authorities for
the abovesaid relief, has come forwarded with the suit seeking for rendition
of account from the defendant. As concluded by the Courts below, when the
relationship of the principal and agent is not shown to be established vis-a-
vis the defendant and the plaintiff and the plaintiff has also not established
to be a workman, as such, under the defendant's company, as concluded by
the Courts below, when the plaintiff has also not come forward as to what
are the amounts due to him under the provident fund claim and gratuity
claim and as above noted, the plaintiff having also not move the appropriate
authorities concerned for the said relief, the Courts below are found to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1415 of 2008
justified in dismissing the plaintiff's suit as devoid of cause of action for
laying the suit against the defendant qua the rendition of accounts.
12. The reasonings and conclusions of the Courts below for rejecting
the plaintiff's suit are found to be based on the proper appreciation of the
materials placed on record, both oral and documentary, both on factual
matrix and on the question of law and in such view of the matter, I do not
find any valid ground to interfere with the same. In my considered opinion,
no substantial question of law is involved in the second appeal. Resultantly,
the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.
02.02.2021
mfa
Index:yes
Internet:yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1415 of 2008
T.RAVINDRAN, J.
mfa
To
1. The V Additional City Civil Judge,
City Civil Court,
Chennai.
2.The IV Assistant Judge,
City Civil Court,
Chennai.
Copy to
The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court.
S.A.No.1415 of 2008
02.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
