Case: Oriental Insurance Company, Limited Vs. T. Mohammed Raisuli Hassan

the Munsiff Court seeking a declaration that the termination of his service effected by the appellant was illegal and he was entitled to be reinstated with back wages. That court recorded a finding of fact that the respondents service with the appellant at the time of his termination was on probation inasmuch as his service was not confirmed. It, however, found the termination of service of the respondent to be illegal for non-giving of one full months notice as a condition precedent for such termination. Yet, it dismissed the plaintiffs suit as barred by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent took up the matter in appeal before the Civil Judge Court, That court affirmed the finding of the Munsiff Court as regards the respondent being on probation at the time of termination of his service, but the view of the Munsiff Court that the termination of the Respondents service by the appellant was illegal for want of one months prior notice. However, taking the view that a suit for mere declaration of invalidating termination of the respondents service could lie in a civil court, granted the decree declaring the termination of service of the respondent to be illegal, in reversal of the decree of the Munsiff court. When the appellant took up the matter in second appeal before the High court, it affirmed the decree of the Civil Judge Court, even though it specifically affirmed the finding of fact concurrently recorded by the courts below that the respondent was in service as a probationer at the time of termination of his service. It is this decree of affirmation made in the second appeal by the High Court which is the subject-matter of the present appeal brought up by the appellant.3. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the courts below had overlooked the apparent purport of clause 10 of the appointment order and had misread the clause. According to him, assuming that under the clause a probationers service also was liable to be terminated with one months notice failure to serve one months notice did not invalidate or vitiate the termination of the respondents service effected by notice dated May 19, 1980, for service of such notice as a condition precedent for termination of the service of the respondent was not a mandatory requirement, the breach of which could result in vitiation of the termination. In any even, non-service of such one months notice before termination of the respondents service, could have at the most entitled him to claim one months salary in lieu there of and nothing else. The submission of the learned counsel, in our view, is well founded. 4. Admittedly, there was no statutory rule requiring one months notice for termination by the appellant of the service of the respondent. It is only the term of appointment order, which stipulated for one months notice or one months salary in lieu thereof by either said to bring an end to the service of the respondent, which is made the basis for claiming invalidation of termination. That term contained in clause 10 of the appointment order reads. "10. This appointment is liable to be terminated at any time by giving one months notice, in writing, on either side, or a months salary in lieu of notice, without assigning any reason.Breach of this condition, will entitle the company to recover from you one months salary in lieu of notice." * 5. When the above term in the clause relating to the condition of service of the respondent with the appellant in seen as a whole, there is nothing to indicate or suggest, even remotely, that non-service of one months notice as a condition precedent for termination of the respondents service would result in vitiation or invalidation of termination, if effected. On the contrary, the second part of the term contained in the clause. "breach of this condition, will entitle the company to recover from you one months salary in lieu of notice" makes it obvious that the same would be the consequence in there was a breach of condition on the part of the company in the matter of service of one months notice before termination of the respondents service. Hence, we are constrained to hold that the non-service of one months notice in writing by the appellant to the respondent before terminating the latters service did not invalidate or vitiate such termination. From this, it follows that courts below had misread the said clause, by which either party was required to serve notice for putting an end to service of the respondent and consequently committed an apparent error in taking the view that non-service of one months prior notice to the respondent had vitiated the termination of his service. 6. What remains to be considered is an objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent regarding the maintainability of the second appeal before the High Court and this further appeal by special leave. According to him when the appellant had not challenged the finding of the Munsiff Court that the termination of the respondents service was illegal for want of one months prior notice by filing an appeal even thought that suit had been dismissed as one without jurisdiction, it was not open to the appellant to seek to have that finding set aside by filing a second appeal after the first appellate court had made a decree based on that finding. The objection, in our view, cannot be sustained for more than one reason. First, this objection had not been raise don behalf of the respondent before the High court when the second appeal of the appellant was heard. And, secondly, this objection overlooks the very provision in Rule 22 Order 41 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 that a respondent in appeal could support the decree made in his favour urging that the issue held against him by the court below ought to have been held in his favour.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]4. Admittedly, there was no statutory rule requiring one months notice for termination by the appellant of the service of the respondent. It is only the term of appointment order, which stipulated for one months notice or one months salary in lieu thereof by either said to bring an end to the service of the respondent, which is made the basis for claiming invalidation of termination. That term contained in clause 10 of the appointment orderThis appointment is liable to be terminated at any time by giving one months notice, in writing, on either side, or a months salary in lieu of notice, without assigning anyof this condition, will entitle the company to recover from you one months salary in lieu of notice."When the above term in the clause relating to the condition of service of the respondent with the appellant in seen as a whole, there is nothing to indicate or suggest, even remotely, thatof one months notice as a condition precedent for termination of the respondents service would result in vitiation or invalidation of termination, if effected. On the contrary, the second part of the term contained in the clause. "breach of this condition, will entitle the company to recover from you one months salary in lieu of notice" makes it obvious that the same would be the consequence in there was a breach of condition on the part of the company in the matter of service of one months notice before termination of the respondents service. Hence, we are constrained to hold that theof one months notice in writing by the appellant to the respondent before terminating the latters service did not invalidate or vitiate such termination. From this, it follows that courts below had misread the said clause, by which either party was required to serve notice for putting an end to service of the respondent and consequently committed an apparent error in taking the view thatof one months prior notice to the respondent had vitiated the termination of hisWhat remains to be considered is an objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent regarding the maintainability of the second appeal before the High Court and this further appeal by special leave. According to him when the appellant had not challenged the finding of the Munsiff Court that the termination of the respondents service was illegal for want of one months prior notice by filing an appeal even thought that suit had been dismissed as one without jurisdiction, it was not open to the appellant to seek to have that finding set aside by filing a second appeal after the first appellate court had made a decree based on that finding. The objection, in our view, cannot be sustained for more than one reason. First, this objection had not been raise don behalf of the respondent before the High court when the second appeal of the appellant was heard. And, secondly, this objection overlooks the very provision in Rule 22 Order 41 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 that a respondent in appeal could support the decree made in his favour urging that the issue held against him by the court below ought to have been held in his favour