Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Nishikant Narayan Kale, was appointed as Planning Manager of Bajaj Tempo Limited (now Force Motors Limited) on 18 May 1980 on probation for six months, and was confirmed on 28 November 1980. He was promoted as Senior Manager with retrospective effect from 1 August 1987. On 24 April 1989, the Managing Director asked him to resign, failing which he would be terminated. The appellant did not resign, and by a letter of the same date, his services were terminated. Aggrieved, he filed Special Civil Suit No.1296 of 1991 before the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, seeking a declaration that the termination was illegal, null and void, and praying for reinstatement with arrears of salary. The Trial Court, by judgment dated 8 February 2005, held that the appellant failed to prove that the termination was illegal, but awarded him arrears of one month's basic salary, LTA difference for 1987 and 1988, and difference in salary and allowances, totaling Rs.14,119/-. The appellant appealed to the District Court at Pune in Civil Appeal No.616 of 2012, which was dismissed on 9 October 2013. The appellant then filed the present Second Appeal before the Bombay High Court. The High Court, after hearing the appellant in person and the respondent's counsel, found that both courts below had concurrently held that the termination was not illegal and that the appellant was not entitled to reinstatement. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the second appeal, as the findings were based on appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The appeal was dismissed, and the concurrent findings of the lower courts were upheld.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Illegal Termination - Burden of Proof - The appellant employee failed to prove that his termination on 24 April 1989 was illegal, null and void - Both courts below concurrently held that the termination was not illegal - The High Court in second appeal found no substantial question of law to interfere with concurrent findings - Held that the appellant was not entitled to reinstatement (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the appellant's services was illegal, null and void, and whether he was entitled to reinstatement with arrears of salary.
Final Decision
Second Appeal dismissed. Concurrent findings of the Trial Court and District Court upheld. Appellant not entitled to reinstatement; only entitled to limited monetary claims as decreed by Trial Court.
Law Points
- burden of proof
- illegal termination
- reinstatement
- concurrent findings
- second appeal
- substantial question of law
