The Panipat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Smt. Sushila Hooda

V.K. Bali, J.—The Panipat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. the appellant herein had only taken technical points with a view to thwart the rightful claim of the plaintiff who successfully maintained a suit challenging the order of her dismissal from service. Concededly no departmental proceedings were conducted and yet extreme order of dismissal from service was passed. In view of this Court the first appellate Court was absolutely right and justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff with all consequential reliefs. It may be mentioned here that whereas the trial Court invalidated the order of dismissal of the plaintiff from service, it did not allow her to have back wages. To that extent the order passed by the trial Judge was reversed by the first appellate Court.

Shri Goel, however, contends that considerable correspondence has been made between the Parties with regard to plaintiff not joining her duties and she took her own time to join the duties. That being so, there was no necessity to hold any enquiry against the plaintiff. It has further been argued that a suit for re-instatementin service after setting aside the order of dismissal was not competent and only a suit for damages could have been filed. In any case civil Court was not competent to grant back wages, further contends the contentions of Shri C.B. Goel the learned Counsel for the appellant. White dealing with the first contention it will be seen that the first appellate Court, after appraisal of the evidence, returned a finding of fact that "impugned act of the defendant in dispensing with the services of the plaintiff without any enquiry of show cause notice is not only illegal and invalid, but it is also against the very principles of natural justice and good conscious." Earlier first appellate Court observed that plaintiff was also entitled to maternity leave for three months. She had duly applied for it vide application dated 26.11.1988 which was declined without any justifiable reason. Not only applications were dismissed but she was continuously mentally harassed and tortured by writing again and again for taking disciplinary action against her and requiring her to join the duties, knowing fully well that she was not medically fit for the same. Unfortunately, perhaps, due to these reasons, she gave birth to a deformed baby. She has, thus, suffered a lot due to high-handedness and unjustifiable act and conduct of the defendant. This Court is of the firm view that the findings recorded by the Courts below, are absolutely correct.

In so far as the contention of Shri Goel with regard to maintainability of suit is concerned, suffice it to say that no objection on that count was ever taken. Facts constituting non-maintainability of suit have not been pleaded in the written statement. In fact, this point was not raised any where i.e. either before the trial Court or the first appellate Court. It depends upon the facts of each case as to whether suit for damages is the only remedy or suit asking for setting aside the orders of dismissal from service is competent. Mr. Goel cannot be permitted at this stage to urge that Panipat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. is only a Cooperative Society and neither a State nor an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The last contention of Mr. Goel that the Civil Court could not grant back wages needs to be summarily rejected as normal rule on the re-instatement is payment of the wages to an employee who was kept out of service in an illegal or unauthorised manner. Appeal to stand dismissed with costs quantified in Rs. 5,000/-.