Madras High Court
Sri Ponnaiyah Ramajayathammal ... vs S.Mani on 13 June, 2023
S.A.(MD)No.338 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
S.A.(MD)No.338 of 2017
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.7248 of 2017
1.Sri Ponnaiyah Ramajayathammal Educational
and Charitable Trust,
Rep. by its Managing Trustee,
P.Murugesan.
2.Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Group of Institutions,
Rep. by its Chairman,
P.Murugesan. ... Appellants
/Vs./
S.Mani ... Respondent
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 15.11.2016 in A.S.No.
54 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur,
confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2013 in O.S.No.266 of
2006 on the file of the District Munsif, Thanjavur by allowing this
appeal.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.338 of 2017
For Appellants : Mr.V.Muthukamatchi
For Respondent : Mr.S.Madhavan
JUDGMENT
This second appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent
findings of the Courts below. The appellants are the defendants in the
suit in O.S.No.266 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Thanjavur. The respondent is the plaintiff in the said suit. The suit was
filed seeking for compensation of two months pay totalling Rs.50,000/-
and Rs.10,000/- as nominal compensation for the mental agony, mental
torture and loss of reputation suffered by the respondent / plaintiff. In
the forthcoming paragraphs, the parties are described as per their
litigative status in the suit.
2. As seen from the plaint, the plaintiff was employed as
Consultant by the defendants and his case is that he was illegally
terminated from his service with effect from 01.05.2003 without any
prior notice. According to the plaintiff, as per the contract of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.338 of 2017
employment, he ought to have been given two months notice by the
defendants before terminating his service. In such circumstances, the
plaintiff claims that he has not been paid two months pay amounting to
Rs.50,000/- and that he had suffered mental agony, mental torture and
loss of reputation, for which he has claimed compensation amount of
Rs.10,000/-.
3. However, the defendants in their written statement have
disputed the same and according to them, only by following the
procedure established under law, the plaintiff's service was terminated
and hence, according to them, the plaintiff is not entitled for the suit
claim.
4. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the trial Court
framed issues, which are as follows:
(a) Whether there is cause of action for the plaintiff to file the
suit?;
(b) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?;
(c) Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit?;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.338 of 2017
(d) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration?;
(e) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for two months salary, ie.,
Rs.50,000/-?;
(f) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation at Rs.10,000/-
for mental agony, mental torture, mental stress and loss of reputation?;
and
(g) To what other reliefs?.
5. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff filed 9 documents, which
were marked as Exs.A1 to A9. The plaintiff himself was examined as a
witness, P.W.1. On the side of the defendants, no oral and documentary
evidence was let in.
6. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court,
namely, District Munsif Court, Thanjavur, in its judgment and decree
dated 17.09.2013 in O.S.No.266 of 2006 decreed the suit in favour of the
plaintiff as prayed for in the plaint by giving the following findings:
(a) The defendants did not file any documents to prove that the
plaintiff had requested for relieving him from employment;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.338 of 2017
(b) Though the defendants have pleaded in their written statement
that the plaintiff was irregular in his service, no documentary evidence
was produced by them to support their stand;
(c) The contract of employment stipulates that two months notice
will have to be given before terminating the service of the plaintiff.
Having not given any such notice, the termination of the plaintiff's
service is illegal;
(d) Two months salary has not been paid by the defendants as
claimed by the plaintiff as seen from the oral and documentary evidence
placed on record;
(e) The plaintiff would have suffered mental agony, mental torture
and loss of reputation on account of his illegal termination by the
defendants;
and hence, the plaintiff is entitled to Rs.10,000/- as compensation
towards mental agony and loss of reputation as claimed in the plaint.
7. The suit is filed within the limitation, ie, within the period of
three years from the date of termination. The termination order, Ex.A3 is
dated 30.04.2003 and the suit was filed on 01.06.2006. 30.04.2006 falls
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.338 of 2017
on Sunday and the period between 01.05.2006 and 31.05.2006 being
Court vacation, the suit having been filed on the next working day, ie.,
01.06.2006 is within the period of limitation.
8. Aggrieved by the findings of the trial Court in its judgment and
decree dated 17.09.2013 in O.S.No.266 of 2006 as referred to supra, the
defendants filed the first appeal before the Additional Sub Court,
Thanjavur in A.S.No.54 of 2014. The lower appellate Court also
confirmed the findings of the trial Court by dismissing the first appeal.
Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, this second
appeal has been filed. This Court, on 09.08.2017, admitted this second
appeal by formulating the following substantial questions of law:
"1.Whether the Courts below correct in granting
decree for consequential relief of compensation after
dismissing the main relief of declaration of termination
order, dated 30.04.2003 under Ex.A.3 is null and void?
2.Whether the Courts below correct in granting the
relief of compensation without any declaration of
termination is illegal as against Section 34 of the Specific
Relief Act?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.338 of 2017
3.Whether the Courts below correct in granting the
decree for consequential relief of compensation only on the
ground that the defendant did not appear without
considering the maintainability of the consequent relief
after dismissal of the declaration of termination order is
legal?
4. Whether both the Courts correct in not dismissing
suit's consequential relief of compensation by holding that
conditional clause of 10 of Ex.A.2 not applicable in the
case acceptance of resignation by passing the impugned
relieving order Ex.A.3 without admitting oral evidence to
contradict contents of Ex.A.3 in contravention of Sections
91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act?"
9. Admittedly, no oral and documentary evidence was produced on
the side of the defendants to disprove the claim of the plaintiff, who had
sought for recovery of his two months salary as well as a sum of
Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and loss of
reputation, which is supported by documentary evidence in the form of
Exs.A1 to A9. The details of the exhibits marked on the side of the
plaintiff are as follows:
“th.rh.M.1 24.03.2000 gzp epakd Miz
th.rh.M.2 17.10.2002 xg;ge;jk;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.338 of 2017
th.rh.M.3 30.04.2003 gzpapy; ,Ue;J
tpLtpj;jjw;fhd cj;jut[
th.rh.M.4 06.06.2003 thjpf;F mDg;gg;gl;l
gpujpthjpapd; fojk;
th.rh.M.5 28.08.2003 thjpapd; fojk;
th.rh.M.6 27.10.2003 thjpapd; fojk;
th.rh.M.7 31.10.2003 thjpf;F gpujpthjp mDg;gpa
fojk;
th.rh.M.8 20.12.2005 thjpapd; fojk;
th.rh.M.9 10.10.2005 thjpapd; fojk;.”
10. The plaintiff has proved that he was an employee of the
defendants and he was working as a Consultant for them on monthly
salary basis. He has also proved as rightly held by the Courts below,
which is substantiated by his documentary evidence that he has been
illegally terminated from the service. The defendants have not followed
the due procedure as stipulated under the Contract of Employment, by
giving the plaintiff two months prior notice before terminating his
service.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.338 of 2017
11. Without issuing any notice, the defendants have terminated the
service of the plaintiff. The defendants have also not paid the plaintiff
his monthly salary for two months. Having been illegally terminated, the
plaintiff would have certainly suffered mental agony and loss of
reputation, for which the Courts below have directed the defendants to
pay the plaintiff a compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
12. This Court does not find any infirmity in the findings of the
Courts below, which have decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff as
prayed for in the plaint by awarding a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards two
months salary payable to the plaintiff and another sum of Rs.10,000/- as
compensation for mental agony and loss of reputation suffered by the
plaintiff.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the substantial questions of law
formulated by this Court on 09.08.2017, which have been extracted supra
are answered against the appellants / defendants, by holding that the
Courts below have rightly held that the defendants are liable to pay the
decretal amount as decreed by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.338 of 2017
appellate Court. There are no debatable issues of law or fact involved for
further consideration by this Court under Section 100 of CPC.
14. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
13.06.2023
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
Sm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.338 of 2017
TO:
1.The Additional Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur.
2.The District Munsif, Thanjavur.
3.The Section Officer, VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.338 of 2017
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Sm
Judgment made in
S.A.(MD)No.338 of 2017
Dated:
13.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
