Case: Parmeshwari Prasad Gupta Vs. The Union Of India

before his services were terminated and as only one months notice was given, he was entitled to 11 months pay in addition to what was awarded under this head.9. As regards the first point, it was said that the meeting of the Board of Directors dated December 16, 1953 was not properly convened for the reason that notice of the meeting was not given to all the Directors. The trial court found that one of the Directors, viz., Mr. B. P. Khaitan, was not given notice of the meeting of the Board of Directors held on December 16, 1953, and that he was not present at the meeting when the resolution to terminate the services of the appellant was passed.10. Now, it cannot be disputed that notice to all the Directors of a meeting of the Board of Directors was essential for the validity of any resolution passed at the meeting and that as, admittedly, no notice was given to Mr. Khaitan, one of the Directors of the Company, the resolution passed terminating the services of the appellant was invalid.11. Article 109 of the Articles of Association of the Company provides as follows :"109. When meeting to be convened.- A Director may at any time summon meeting of the Directors by serving every Director with at least 72 hours notice in writing through the officer of the Company authorized to issue such notice who shall arrange to convene the meeting".In Halsburys Laws of England, Vol. 9, p. 46, it has been stated that it is essential that notice of the meeting and of the business to be transacted should be given to all persons entitled to participate and that if a member whom it is reasonably possible to summon is not summoned, the meeting will not be duly convened, even though the omission is accidental or due to the fact that the member has informed the officer whose duty it is to serve notice that he need not serve notice on him. In Volume 6 of the same book at p. 315 Article 626, it is stated that a meeting of the directors is not duly convened unless due notice has been given to all the directors, and the business put through at a meeting not duly convened is invalid.12. To put it in other words, as the meeting of the Board of Directors held on December 16, 1953, was invalid, so the resolution to terminate the services of the plaintiff was inoperative.13. Then, the question for consideration is, what is the effect of the confirmation of the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors held on December 16, 1953 and the action of the Chairman in terminating the services of the appellant by his telegram and letter dated December 17, 1953, in pursuance to the invalid resolution of the Board of Directors to terminate his services, in the meeting of the Board of Directors held on December 23, 1953?14. The agenda of the meeting of the Board of Directors held on December 23, 1953 shows that one item of business was the confirmation of the minutes of the meeting of the Directors held on December 16, 1953. The confirmation of the minutes of the meeting of the Directors held on 16-12-1953, would not in any way show that the Board of Directors adopted the resolution to terminate the services of the appellant passed on December 16,1953. It only shows that the Board passed the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on December 16, 1953. But the resolution of the Board of Directors to confirm the action of the Chairman to terminate the services of the appellant by his telegram and letter dated December 17, 1953, would show that the Board ratified the action of the Chairman. Even if it be assumed that the telegram and the letter terminating the services of the appellant by the Chairman was in pursuance to the invalid resolution of the Board of Directors passed on December 16, 1953 to terminate his services, it would not follow that the action of the Chairman could not be ratified in a regularly convened meeting of the Board of Directors. The point is that even assuming that the Chairman was not legally authorised to terminate the services of the appellant, he was acting on behalf of the Company in doing so, because, he purported to act in pursuance of the invalid resolution. Therefore, it was open to a regularly constituted meeting of the Board of Directors to ratify that action which, though unauthorized, was done on behalf of the Company. Ratification would always relate back to the date of the act ratified and so it must be held that the services of the appellant were validly terminated on December 17, 1953.The appellant was not entitled to the declaration prayed for by him and this trial court as well as the High Court was right in dismissing the claim.15. The second point for consideration is whether the appellant was entitled to 18 months notice before his services were terminated as claimed by him. The trial Court found that the rules of the Company, viz., exhibits D-3 and D-4 were binding on the appellant and that rule 6 of exhibit D-3 which provides for one months notice in case of termination of services of all employees would apply to the appellant as well. The High Court confirmed that finding. The rules expressly purport to bind all the employees of the respondent-Company. There is no reason to hold that the appellant was not an employee of the respondent-Company. Besides, the appellant himself has relied upon these rules for the purpose of computation of the amount due to him on account of bonus, provident fund, etc. In these circumstances it is idle to contend that the rules did not bind him. In this view, it is quite unnecessary to consider the question whether, apart from the rules, one months notice was reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]9. As regards the first point, it was said that the meeting of the Board of Directors dated December 16, 1953 was not properly convened for the reason that notice of the meeting was not given to all the Directors. The trial court found that one of the Directors, viz., Mr. B. P. Khaitan, was not given notice of the meeting of the Board of Directors held on December 16, 1953, and that he was not present at the meeting when the resolution to terminate the services of the appellant was passed.10. Now, it cannot be disputed that notice to all the Directors of a meeting of the Board of Directors was essential for the validity of any resolution passed at the meeting and that as, admittedly, no notice was given to Mr. Khaitan, one of the Directors of the Company, the resolution passed terminating the services of the appellant was invalid.The agenda of the meeting of the Board of Directors held on December 23, 1953 shows that one item of business was the confirmation of the minutes of the meeting of the Directors held on December 16, 1953. The confirmation of the minutes of the meeting of the Directors held on 16-12-1953, would not in any way show that the Board of Directors adopted the resolution to terminate the services of the appellant passed on December 16,1953. It only shows that the Board passed the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on December 16, 1953. But the resolution of the Board of Directors to confirm the action of the Chairman to terminate the services of the appellant by his telegram and letter dated December 17, 1953, would show that the Board ratified the action of the Chairman. Even if it be assumed that the telegram and the letter terminating the services of the appellant by the Chairman was in pursuance to the invalid resolution of the Board of Directors passed on December 16, 1953 to terminate his services, it would not follow that the action of the Chairman could not be ratified in a regularly convened meeting of the Board of Directors. The point is that even assuming that the Chairman was not legally authorised to terminate the services of the appellant, he was acting on behalf of the Company in doing so, because, he purported to act in pursuance of the invalid resolution. Therefore, it was open to a regularly constituted meeting of the Board of Directors to ratify that action which, though unauthorized, was done on behalf of the Company. Ratification would always relate back to the date of the act ratified and so it must be held that the services of the appellant were validly terminated on December 17, 1953.The appellant was not entitled to the declaration prayed for by him and this trial court as well as the High Court was right in dismissing the claim.15. The second point for consideration is whetherthe appellant was entitled to 18 months notice before his services were terminated as claimed byhim. The trial Court found that the rules of the Company, viz., exhibits D-3 and D-4 were binding on the appellant and that rule 6 of exhibit D-3 which provides for one months notice in case of termination of services of all employees would apply to the appellant as well. The High Court confirmed that finding. The rules expressly purport to bind all the employees of the respondent-Company. There is no reason to hold that the appellant was not an employee of the respondent-Company. Besides, the appellant himself has relied upon these rules for the purpose of computation of the amount due to him on account of bonus, provident fund, etc. In these circumstances it is idle to contend that the rules did not bind him.