AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Valmiki J Mehta, J.—This matter is on the "Regular Board" of this Court since 17.1.2011. Today, this matter is effective item No. 5 on the "Regular Board". It is 2.45 P.M. and no one has chosen to appear for the parties. I have therefore perused the record and am proceeding to dispose of the appeal.
The challenge by means of the present regular first appeal u/s 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.3.2001 whereby the suit of the Appellant/Plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 1,02,448/- has been dismissed on a preliminary issue framed as under:
Whether the suit is without any cause of action as against the present Defendants? OPP
The suit was dismissed holding that there was no cause of action against the Defendants/Respondents. Suit was basically for recovery of damages for illegal termination of services.
The need for framing of the issue arose because the Appellant/Plaintiff was an employee of M/s Synthiko Formulations Ltd and not M/s Synthiko Formulations and Chemicals Ltd. against whom the suit was filed. Defendant No. 2 in the suit was the director and in any case, a director is not liable for the grievances of an employee against the employer company.
Though, the impugned judgment and decree decides the suit on a preliminary issue, in reality, the suit has been disposed off under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC on the admitted facts which emerged that the Appellant/Plaintiff was the employee of M/s Synthiko Formulations Ltd. and not the Defendant No. 1 M/s Synthiko Formulations and Chemicals Ltd.
The admitted facts are that the Appellant/Plaintiff was employed by M/s Synthiko Formulations Ltd. and against whom originally the suit was filed and which company was originally sued as Defendant No. 1 and Sh. M.J. Dadiya was the director of the company sued as Defendant No. 2. Surprisingly, however, during the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed whereby the Defendant No. 1 M/s Synthiko Formulations Ltd. was sought to be substituted by M/s Synthiko Formulations and Chemicals Ltd. This application was allowed and the original Defendant No. 1 M/s Synthiko Formulations Ltd. was substituted by M/s Synthiko Formulations and Chemicals Ltd. Admittedly, M/s Synthiko Chemicals Ltd. is a separate company than the present Defendant No. 1 M/s Synthiko Formulations and Chemicals Ltd. All the documents which are filed with the suit show the Appellant/Plaintiff as the employee of M/s Synthiko Formulations Ltd. and not of Synthiko Formulations and Chemicals Ltd.- the present Defendant No. 1.
The trial court has therefore by the impugned judgment and decree dismissed the suit on the ground that the Appellant/Plaintiff is not entitled to relief from the company Synthiko Formulations and Chemicals Ltd., as the Appellant was the employee of M/s Synthiko Formulations Ltd. and not of the Respondent No. 1/Defendant No. 1 M/s Synthiko Formulations and Chemicals Ltd. I may note that no case is laid out in the plaint of M/s Synthiko Formulations Ltd. having been merged with M/s Synthiko Formulations and Chemicals Ltd. If such a case was laid out in the plaint, it is possible that the suit would have been maintainable against the M/s Synthiko Formulations and Chemicals Ltd. assuming that the latter supposedly took over the assets and liabilities of M/s Synthiko Formulations Ltd. In the entire plaint, reference however is made only to the Defendant No. 1/Respondent No. 1/M/s Synthiko Formulations and Chemicals Ltd. as the original employer of the Appellant, and which admittedly was not the case as per the Appellant/Plaintiff own documents.
In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or perversity with the impugned judgment and decree which calls for interference by this Court. The appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Trial court record be sent back.