IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 230 OF 2001 BETWEEN: Hanumath Kali Vara Prasad Babu Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director …APPELLANT/DEFENDANT AND Bulusu Surya Prakasa Rao …RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 230 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: The defendant in O.S.No.74 of 1998 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, is the appellant herein. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming that he was employed by the appellant herein as a Chief Chemist with effect from 15-04-1981 on a consolidated salary of Rs.2,500/- per month and the age of superannuation is 58 years and he has got previous experience in the job. While he was working to the satisfaction of the defendant, on 14- 06-1986 the services were terminated with effect from 15-06-1986 on the ground that the defendant is not satisfied with the work. Further- more, it was contended that due to the disputes between the Directors and shareholders, some criminal cases were instituted and the plaintiff was driven out of the Quarters. Then, took nearly 2 ½ years to get alternative employment and suffered mental agony and therefore, the suit was filed for recovery of salary of Rs.60,000/- at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month for a period of two years, for a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards damages for loss of reputation and mental agony, and a sum of Rs.6,250/- towards gratuity. 3. The defendant contended that there is no cause of action to file the suit that the defendant along with the termination notice sent a demand draft for one month salary in view of the termination and the plaintiff indulged in misappropriation of the amounts and therefore, his services were terminated. The defendant also filed O.S.No.425 of 1989 for recovery of money of misappropriated funds. The claim for loss of reputation, mental agony does not arise. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed, for trial, by the trial court: 1) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit? 2) Whether plaintiff is entitled to suit amounts? 3) To what relief? 5. On behalf of the plaintiff, PW.1 was examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-14. On behalf of the defendant, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced. 6. After considering the evidence on record, the learned IV Additional District Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards damages on account of loss of employment and a further-more sum of Rs.15,000/- towards damages on account of loss of reputation and mental agony. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed. 7. Now the points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount? 2) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, is legal and sustainable? 8. POINTS: The learned counsel for the appellant contends that this being a suit for damages on termination of the personal contract is not maintainable without questioning the termination itself. Evidently, so far as private employment and contractual employment is concerned, there is no guarantee and the services are terminable at the will of the employer or as per the contract between the parties, particularly the letter of employment. If an employee seeks protection under the labour laws, the issue will be different. But, in this case, the plaintiff has not claimed protection under any labour law for his continuance of his service or the legality of the termination of the services. 9. Evidently, the services were terminated with effect from 15-06-1986 and the suit was filed 06-06-1988, which is nearly two years after the termination by the appellant. Evidently, no notice was given by the appellant on the aspect of his mental agony or about the liability to pay any loss or damages to him. The plaintiff has kept quiet for a period of two years. If really the plaintiff is found to be un-employed for a period of two years, then the burden is on him to show that there is no employment. But however, except his own evidence, there is nothing on record to show that he lost his living. 10. On the other hand, he claims to have started a medical shop and was running the same. The particulars of the said business and from which day it was started is not mentioned. Evidently, the appointment of the plaintiff under Ex.A-1 is only a contractual appointment and on a temporary monthly basis, without any claim for enhancement of the salary or a right of regularisation or a permanent post to be given to the plaintiff. If at all there is a likelihood of retirement at 58, it can only be with the management. If the management wishes to absorb him permanently in order to constitute any mental agony or loss of reputation to the plaintiff, the termination order Ex.A-2 does not show that any stigma was attached to the plaintiff. The order shows that the employer was not satisfied with the work. In such circumstances, the claim of the plaintiff that the termination was with a stigma and he suffered mental agony and insult cannot be accepted. Therefore, the claim for damages towards mental agony and loss of reputation granted by the lower Court is not based on Ex.A-2 and no inference can be taken that it is a stigma and an adverse remark on the plaintiff. The reason given by the learned Judge to come to such a conclusion is not legal. When employer is not satisfied with the work, without any reasons also, the services can be terminated and it is a prerogative of the employer. Mere termination of services without any blemish or any reference to the conduct of the employee will not therefore be taken as a stigma and therefore, taking into consideration above facts, the contention of the plaintiff for damages towards loss of reputation and mental agony cannot be sustained. 11. The plaintiff claims that he had no employment for a period of two years and the learned Judge also did not accept the said contention and he has only confined to claim for a period of one year. Even to prove this also, the plaintiff has not adduced any evidence to show that he was un-employed and there is also no material evidence on record to come to a conclusion that because of the termination of the services by the defendant, the plaintiff has lost opportunity in any other employment. Therefore, when the plaintiff fails to prove that he was unemployed, even after he is found entitled to the damages, it cannot be granted. Evidently, Ex.A-1 does not speak of the consequences of the termination and the lower Court found the period of probation is kept blank in Ex.A-1. That means the management has got every right to keep the plaintiff under probation and till his services confirmed, he shall be deemed that only on probation and not permanent employee. In fact, under clause 4 of Ex.A-1, the defendant has got every right to terminate the services without any notice or also wages. However, in this case, the defendant has terminated by giving wages for one month. Normal practice in cases of this nature, where personal contract is terminated, is to pay at least three months salary in lieu of termination. 12. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, I feel the ends of justice would meet if a further sum of Rs.7,500/- is paid, consequences on the termination, towards three months salary excluding the amount of Rs.2,500/-, which was already paid. Accordingly, the points are answered. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and while setting aside the relief of grant of Rs.15,000/- granted to the plaintiff for damages towards mental agony and loss of reputation. The claim towards termination is confined to salary of three months, which is Rs.7,500/- excluding the one month salary already paid. Therefore, the defendant is directed to pay the said amount with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of decree of the lower Court. Each party shall bear their own costs in the appeal and in the lower Court. Date: 29-01-2011. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J INL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 230 OF 2001 29th January, 2011 INL