w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Benjamin Theogaraj v/s M/s. G.D.A. Security (P) Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Chennai


Company & Directors' Information:- SECURITY CO LTD [Active] CIN = L65929WB1948PLC016992

Company & Directors' Information:- G SECURITY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74920MH2004PTC150235

Company & Directors' Information:- S R SECURITY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74920MH2005PTC152956

Company & Directors' Information:- S R SECURITY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74110MH2005PTC152956

Company & Directors' Information:- B D SECURITY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74920JK2006PTC002638

Company & Directors' Information:- G I SECURITY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140WB1993PTC057724

Company & Directors' Information:- R M G SECURITY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74910TN1997PTC038969

Company & Directors' Information:- G D A SECURITY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1973PTC006424

Company & Directors' Information:- J S D SECURITY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74920DL2009PTC197167

Company & Directors' Information:- S M SECURITY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1996PTC007805

Company & Directors' Information:- J AND J SECURITY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74920DL2004PTC128735

Company & Directors' Information:- W B SECURITY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74920RJ2012PTC040905

Company & Directors' Information:- G T I SECURITY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2013PTC251541

Company & Directors' Information:- J. B. C. SECURITY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2017PTC302126

Company & Directors' Information:- AT SECURITY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2012PTC234962

Company & Directors' Information:- L N T SECURITY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL2001PTC109776

Company & Directors' Information:- VERSUS SECURITY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL2009PTC195274

Company & Directors' Information:- S O L SECURITY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74920DL2002PTC115968

Company & Directors' Information:- H S SECURITY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74920DL2004PTC127249

Company & Directors' Information:- M P S SECURITY PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74920DL2007PTC169952

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND G SECURITY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74920HR2020PTC087465

Company & Directors' Information:- I S S SECURITY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74920DL2000PTC103574

    S.A. No. 1415 of 2008

    Decided On, 02 February 2021

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. RAVINDRAN

    For the Appellant: P. Sidharthan, Advocate. For the Respondent: No Appearance.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and Decree dated 16.09.2003 in A.S.No.64 of 2003 on the file of the V Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2001 in O.S.No.14451 of 1996 on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai).1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2003 passed in A.S.No.64 of 2003 on the file of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2001 passed in O.S.No.14451 of 1996 on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court. At the time when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation for the respondent, the respondent being called, remaining absent, set exparte.3. The suit has been laid for directing the defendant to render proper accounts to the plaintiff to ascertain the amount lawfully due to the plaintiff under various benefits in respect of his services in the defendant's organization between the periods 01.01.1980 to 04.10.1993 and direct the defendant to pay the quantified amount as ascertained after such rendition of account to the plaintiff together with interest thereon at 18% per annum from 04.10.1993 till date of payment.4. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.14451 of 1996 is the appellant in the second appeal.5. According to the plaintiff, he was appointed as the Administrative Manager of the defendant's branch at Coimbatore on the basis of the consolidated salary of Rs.1,500/- per month with effect from 01.01.1980 and subsequently, he was transferred to the Madras Branch Office of the defendant as the Branch Manager with effect from 25.06.1981 and later promoted as Regional Manager and thereafter as General Manager and he has discharged his duties to the satisfaction of the defendant and he was given various benefits for the services rendered by him such as group gratuity, life assurance scheme, Provident fund and other benefits and necessary contributions were also collected from the plaintiff periodically. Due to certain differences between the plaintiff and the defendant's company, without attributing any reason, the defendant terminated the services of the plaintiff from the company with effect from 04.10.1993 and the plaintiff was also directed to deliver the possession of the residential accommodation provided to him by the company and the plaintiff sent several letters to the defendant to settle his dues over a period of 15 years for the services rendered by him and the defendant has failed to respond to the same and hence according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.6. The defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit by putting forth the case that the plaintiff was an employee under the defendant's company. The case projected by him that he was discharging his duties satisfactorily is false and on account of the malpractice committed by the plaintiff, a police complaint was lodged against him and criminal proceeding was also initiated for which the plaintiff had been convicted and further putforth that the defendant has not withheld any payment due to the plaintiff and if at all the plaintiff has any claim qua provident fund contribution etc., he has to approach appropriate authority for the refund of the same and the defendant has nothing to do with reference to the same and with reference to the gratuity, for the said purpose, the plaintiff has to apply to the appropriate authority at New Delhi for settlement of his dues qua the gratuity and in such view of the matter, according to the defendant, without approaching the appropriate authorities, the suit has been hastily filed by the plaintiff against the defendant, hence according to the defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to any rendition of the accounts for the dues to him for the services rendered in defendant's company and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.7. This suit along with another suit laid by the defendant's company in O.S.No.13983 of 1986 were disposed of by the trial court by way of a common judgment. It is further noted that common evidence was recorded in both the suits.8. In the suit laid by the plaintiff in O.S.No.14451 of 1996, in support of the plaintiff's case P.W.1 was examined. Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On the side of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined. Exs.B1 to B16 were marked.9. On an appreciation of the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary and the submissions putforth by the respective parties, the trial court was pleased to dismiss the plaintiff's suit in O.S.No.14451 of 1996 and decreed the suit laid by the company in O.S.No.13983 of 1986. Impugning the judgment and decree passed in the suit laid by him, the plaintiff preferred the first appeal in A.S.No.64 of 2003 on the file of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The first appellate court also, on an appreciation of the materials placed on record and the submissions putforth by the respective parties, was pleased to dismiss the appeal preferred by the plaintiff. Challenging the same, the second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff.10. Considering the submissions putforth by the respective parties and the materials placed on record, it is seen that the plaintiff has been under the services of the defendant's company in various capacities and at one point of time, his service had been terminated for the malpractice committed by the plaintiff in discharge of his duties. The plaintiff's claim is that he is entitled for the service benefits and accordingly seeking for the rendition of accounts, with reference to the same, the plaintiff has come forward with the present suit. As rightly concluded by the Courts below, with reference to the provident fund and gratuity, the plaintiff has laid the suit for recovery of the amount due to him. For calculating the said amount vis-a-vis, the service rendered by the plaintiff, it is not necessary on the part of the defendant to render any accounts. As rightly concluded by the Courts below, for the amount due to him under the provident fund claim, the plaintiff has to approach the appropriate authority and similarly for working out his claim for getting gratuity amount due to him, as contended by the defendant's counsel, the plaintiff has to approach the appropriate authority at New Delhi.11. As rightly concluded by the Courts below, the plaintiff not being a workman under the defendant's company and also the plaintiff not an agent of the defendant, in all, the claim of the plaintiff that the defendant's company should render accounts to enable him to seek the refund of the amount due to him under the provident fund contribution and gratuity as such cannot be countenanced. As rightly concluded by the Courts below for the said relief, it is for the plaintiff to move the appropriate authorities concerned. The plaintiff without approaching the appropriate authorities for the abovesaid relief, has come forwarded with the suit seeking for rendition of account from the defendant. As concluded by the Courts below, when the relationship of the principal and agent is not shown to be established vis-avis the defendant and the plaintiff and the plaintiff has also not established to be a workman, as such, under the defendant's company, as concluded by the Courts below, when the plaintiff has also not come forward as to what are the amounts due to him under the provident fund claim and gratuity claim

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

and as above noted, the plaintiff having also not move the appropriate authorities concerned for the said relief, the Courts below are found to be justified in dismissing the plaintiff's suit as devoid of cause of action for laying the suit against the defendant qua the rendition of accounts.12. The reasonings and conclusions of the Courts below for rejecting the plaintiff's suit are found to be based on the proper appreciation of the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary, both on factual matrix and on the question of law and in such view of the matter, I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the same. In my considered opinion, no substantial question of law is involved in the second appeal. Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.
O R