TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Employee entitled to salary during suspension, termination justified for financial misconduct. Arrears granted, injunction denied. Appeal dismissed.</h1> <h3>United Karnatak Insurance Co. Versus Govardhana Rao Venkata Rao</h3> United Karnatak Insurance Co. Versus Govardhana Rao Venkata Rao - AIR 1961 Kant 49, AIR 1961 Mys 49 Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to salary and dearness allowance during suspension.2. Validity and operability of the termination of the plaintiff's services.3. Entitlement to arrears of pay.4. Entitlement to a mandatory injunction directing the Company to revive the plaintiff's policy.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Salary and Dearness Allowance During Suspension:The plaintiff, an employee of the Company since 1931 and serving as Manager since 1936, was suspended on 7-4-1948. The court concluded that the plaintiff is entitled to his remuneration during the suspension period, irrespective of the Managing Director's competence to suspend him. The relationship between the Company and the plaintiff is that of a master and servant, and as such, a suspended servant is still entitled to the remuneration fixed. The court referenced the principle that 'the power of the employer to suspend an employee under the ordinary law of master and servant... can only be the creature either of a statute governing the contract, or of an express term in the contract itself.' Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to his monthly salary of Rs. 180/- and dearness allowance of Rs. 22/- during the suspension.2. Validity and Operability of the Termination of the Plaintiff's Services:The plaintiff challenged his dismissal on grounds of vagueness, malicious intent, and lack of opportunity to defend himself. The Company contended it had the absolute right to terminate the plaintiff's services and that the charges were clear and justified. The court found that the substantial charge against the plaintiff was related to loans in the name of Sri Melligatti, which were essentially loans taken by the plaintiff, contravening Section 29 of the Insurance Act. The court concluded that the plaintiff's dismissal was justified and in the interest of the Company. The principle of natural justice was discussed, and the court held that the plaintiff had been given adequate opportunity to meet the charges, and the decision to dismiss him was essentially just.3. Entitlement to Arrears of Pay:The plaintiff claimed Rs. 3024/- as arrears of salary, based on a Working Committee resolution granting him Rs. 5040/- as arrears, payable in five annual installments. The court agreed with the plaintiff's claim, finding the evidence on record sufficient to justify the arrears of pay.4. Entitlement to a Mandatory Injunction Directing the Company to Revive the Plaintiff's Policy:The plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction to revive his life policy, which had been ordered to be paid up due to non-payment of premiums during his suspension and subsequent dismissal. The court rejected this claim, noting that the plaintiff had failed to perform his part of the contract by not paying his share of the premium. The court stated that no provision of law was brought to their notice under which such an injunction could be granted, and the plaintiff must seek other remedies if the Company unlawfully deprived him of the means to pay the premium.Conclusion:Both the appeal and the cross-objections were dismissed with costs, affirming the lower court's judgment.
TaxTMI 