Dismissed

M/s. Anwarul Uloom College of Engineering and Technology, v. Sri Dr.Ram Mohan Rao

Telangana HC15 Mar 2013CCCA/55/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The City Civil Court dismissed an appeal filed by an engineering college appealing against a decree ordering it to pay a plaintiff/principal damages and salary. The court found a deemed extension of the plaintiff's services after the initial term and held the college liable for unceremonious removal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; judgment and decree of the Court below confirmed; no order as to costs.

M/s. Anwarul Uloom College of Engineering… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO.55 of 2010

¶3

Dated:- 15th March, 2013

¶4

Between:-

¶5

Anwarul Uloom College of Engineering and technology, rep. by its secretary

¶6

…Appellant

¶7

AND

¶8

Dr. Ram Mohan Rao

¶9

…Respondent

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶11

CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO.55 of 2010

¶12

JUDGMENT:-

¶13

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2010 passed in O.S.No.1953 of 2005 by the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, directing the defendants to pay Rs.3,96,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization, the defendant therein filed this appeal.

¶14

The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff before the Court below and for the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Court below.

¶15

The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.5,96,000/- for damages with costs and interest contending that the defendant society appointed him as principal of the engineering college being run by it with effect from 24.01.2004 for a period of one year on a monthly salary of Rs.36,000/-. He had discharged his function as principal of the engineering college to the utmost satisfaction of the management and to one and all. The defendant society has extended his term as principal by one more year with effect from January, 2005 and verbally

¶16

informed the same to him assuring to follow the written confirmation regarding extension of the term. When he was discharging his duties and expecting written order of extension of his term, he was served with an office order dated 28.03.2005 informing him to quit the office and to handover charge to another professor. It is also the case of the plaintiff that he was offered good employment opportunity with lucrative salary during January, 2005, but only due to the promise made by the defendant, he was expecting extension of his term by the defendant society and, therefore, he refused such offers and continued to work with the defendant’s college. It is also his case that without issuing any notice, his services were unceremoniously terminated in the middle of the academic year and thereby, the plaintiff had undergone untold mental agony and was forced to sit idle at home without any income. It is also his case that the defendant society did not pay him two months salary amounting to Rs.72,000/-, i.e., for February and March, 2005 in spite of utilizing his services. He claimed 9 months salary at Rs.36,000/- per month amounting to Rs.3,24,000/- apart from salary for the months of February and March, 2005 amounting Rs.72,000/- and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and thus, claimed a total compensation of Rs.5,96,000/- from the defendant.

¶17

The defendant, though admitted that the plaintiff was appointed as principal of engineering college being run by it with effect from 24.01.2004, but denied the contention of the plaintiff that his services were extended by one more year with effect from January, 2005. The defendant’s specific case is that the plaintiff was appointed for a specific period of one year and by afflux of time, his tenure was over. The further case of

¶18

the defendant is that the plaintiff discharged his duties till March, 2005 at his own risk without any assurance from the defendant for payment of salary for the said period. It is also contended that there was no shock to the plaintiff as alleged by him. It is also denied that the plaintiff was offered job with lucrative salary, but due to his attachment with the defendant’s institution, he refused the said offer. Thus, the case of the defendant is that the plaintiff is not entitled to the amount claimed by him.

¶19

The Court below framed the following issues for trial:-

¶20

1. Whether the services of the plaintiff were extended for one more year from January, 2005?

¶21

2. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit?

¶22

3. Whether the plaintiff has discharged duties till the end of March, 2005 and whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit claim?

¶23

On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1 ad Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked.

¶24

The Court below, by observing that if at all the plaintiff’s term had come to end by 27.01.2005, nothing prevented the defendant in directing the plaintiff to get relieved on the very same day and that the defendant did not issue any office order at least 30 days in advance to the plaintiff to relieve by 27.01.2005 and that Ex.A.2 submitted by the plaintiff was kept in cold storage and that the services of the plaintiff were abruptly terminated in the middle of the academic year without

¶25

giving him an opportunity and, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for two months salary and also damages for nine months at the rate of Rs.36,000/- per month and thus, decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed this appeal.

¶26

Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submitted that the plaintiff himself admitted that the appointment order is for a period of one year and admittedly, no orders were issued by the defendant extending his services and there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant after 27.01.2005 since his services stood expired by 27.01.2005. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case between Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co. Ltd., Rae Bareli and another Vs. Badri Nath Dixit and others^[1] , learned counsel submitted that a contract of employment cannot ordinarily be enforced by order against employer and when there is no privity of contract, the suit for mandatory injunction to enforce the said contract is not maintainable. He has also relied on the judgment in the case

¶27

between K.S.Satyanarayana Vs. V.R.Narayana Rao^[2] in support of his contention that the plaintiff cannot claim compensation under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act which says that when a person does something for another or delivers something to another, he cannot sue for specific performance of contract nor ask for damages for the breach of the contract, for the simple reason that there is no contract between him and the other person for whom he does something or to whom he delivers something. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the question of issuing notice to the plaintiff does not arise since Section 25(F)

¶28

of the Industrial Disputes Act has no application to the defendant society. It is also submitted that the defendant society is a minority institution and since appointment order was issued for a specific period, there is no need to issue any notice or any office order to quit the office. It is also argued that Article 14 or the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India are not applicable in the case of private employment. His main submission is that since there is no contract, the Court below committed a grave error in holding that there is breach of contract.

¶29

The plaintiff, who appeared in person, argued that the defendant society is affiliated to Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University and is governed by the Universities Act. It is also his submission that the executive council shall have power to grant affiliation or recognition to any educational institution and that the institution shall be managed by a governing body under Rule 5 for affiliation and recognition of colleges. It is further submitted that he was selected by a selection committee and there is no resolution of governing body to terminate his services and that the defendant institution is bound by the rules and regulations of the university. Thus, his main submission is that since he is selected by a selection committee, the defendant cannot terminate his services abruptly. It is further argued that there is deemed extension of services and the defendant institution assured him that his services will be extended and in the above circumstances, though the plaintiff had several offers, but due to the attachment with the institution, he did not accept any such offer. It is also his submission that he was unceremoniously terminated without giving any opportunity.

¶30

In support of his contentions, he had relied on the judgment in the case between Mulamchand Vs. State of M.P .^[3] , Manager, The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Basheerbagh, Hyderabad Vs. Abbsetti Venkatarao^[4] and United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. A.Narayana Reddy^[5] and also referred to the rules of the University.

¶31

The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any deemed extension of services of the plaintiff by the defendant and if so, whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation.

¶32

It is not in dispute that the plaintiff was appointed as principal in the engineering college being run by the defendant society with effect from 24.01.2004 for a period of one year on a monthly salary of Rs.36,000/-. Ex.A.1 is the appointment order, wherein, it is mentioned as follows:-

¶33

“His appointment will be in the first instance be for a period of one year. Continuation beyond would be considered at the appropriate time.”

¶34

According to the defendant, the plaintiff’s term has come to an end by 27.01.2005. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff was allowed to continue till 28.03.2006. The plaintiff’s case is that when he approached the defendant, the defendant society assured him extension of term by one more year with effect from January, 2005. Admittedly, there is no such written order. The plaintiff claims that he had submitted representation under Ex.A.2 on 24.01.2005 seeking to issue orders of continuation of his services. Of course, it is a fact

¶35

there is no mention about the said notice in the legal notice issued by the plaintiff, but when P.W.1 has specifically deposed that he had sent a letter on 24.01.2005 to the Secretary of the defendant college regarding continuation of services through a written order, the said fact is not disputed by D.W.1. Admittedly, the defendant had issued Ex.A.3 orders dated 28.03.2005 informing the plaintiff that the management of the defendant society decided not to grant further extension and that the plaintiff is relieved from the post of principal with immediate effect and further directing him to handover charge to Professor U.V.R.Sharma, Director, APD Cell, who was directed to hold additional charge of the post of principal until further orders. Admittedly, in Ex.A1 – appointment order, it is mentioned that continuation of the services of the plaintiff beyond one year would be considered at the appropriate time. According to the defendant, the term of the plaintiff came to end by 27.01.2005. Admittedly, no orders, as stated under Ex.A.3, have been passed in the month of December, 2004 or in the month of January, 2005. Admittedly, no alternative arrangement was made and no other person was posted as principal in the place of the plaintiff. No in-charge arrangements were made. No order was issued to the plaintiff directing him to handover the charge to any other person. Moreover, he was allowed to function as principal of the college. If at all the defendant had not extended the term of the plaintiff, as contended by it, the defendant would have certainly issued orders directing the plaintiff to handover the charge of his post. Since no alternative arrangements have been made and since no order was issued relieving the plaintiff from the post of principal, it is deemed that the

¶36

defendant has extended the services of the petitioner beyond 27.01.2005. It is surprising to note that admittedly, the plaintiff was served with office order dated 28.03.2005 issued by the defendant informing him that the management has decided not to grant further extension from 27.01.2005. No reasons have been assigned for passing such order on 28.03.2005 not granting further extension from 27.01.2005. As discussed above, there is deemed extension of service. Once there is deemed extension of service, it is clear that the plaintiff was unceremoniously removed from services. No opportunity was given to him to putforth his contention and such an action of the defendant certainly causes mental agony to the plaintiff. There is nothing to disbelieve the version of the plaintiff that he had offers during January, 2005, but due to his emotional attachment with the defendant institution, he rejected such offers. It is argued that the termination of services is automatic by afflux of time. D.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that there is no mention of termination of services of the plaintiff by afflux of time in the appointment order under Ex.A.1. Though it is mentioned that continuation beyond a period of one year will be considered at the appropriate time, but D.W.1 admitted that they did not take any action within the said appropriate time. Even in case of private contract of employment, no direction can be issued for enforcement of such contract.

¶37

Learned counsel for the appellant had relied on Nandganj‘s case (1 supra). The facts of that case are entirely different. There was no selection, no appointment and no concluded contract between the plaintiff and the defendants in that case. The Chairman and Managing Director of the third defendant had sponsored the candidature of the plaintiff in that

¶38

case. Admittedly, there was no concluded contract between the plaintiff and the defendants in that case. Therefore, the facts of that case are not applicable to the facts of this case.

¶39

There is no need to refer to other decisions relied by the plaintiff and the defendant in this appeal. Though the plaintiff contended that the defendant educational institution should be managed by the governing body and no resolution was passed by the governing body and he was appointed by a selection committee, he had not pleaded so in his plaint and in the absence of any such plea, even if there is evidence, such pleas need not be considered. There is another aspect in this case. Though Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable since there is deemed extension of service, it appears that the defendant cannot abruptly terminate the services of the plaintiff. Moreover, a cursory examination of evidence on record reveals that certain suggestions were given to the plaintiff making certain allegations against him. When such allegations are made, the termination cannot be deemed as termination simplicitor.

¶40

Having considered the entire evidence on record and the rival contentions, it is clear that the Court below is perfectly justified in decreeing the suit and it is not possible to take any other contra view. Though certain observations of the Court below with regard to the principles of law in case of private employment may require a second thought, but an overall examination of the case gives an impression that there is no need to disturb the findings of the Court below on the main dispute between the parties. I do not see any reason to allow the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶41

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the Court below. There shall be no

¶42

order as to costs.

¶43

_________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar

¶44

March 15, 2013 Bvv

¶45