New Delhi: A Delhi court has pronounced its verdict in favour of a private firm executive, 34 years after he filed a complaint against his dismissal.
Civil Judge Vikram passed the decree worth over Rs 22,000 plus interest on it in favour of Amritsar-based private firm's former manager Gobind Ram, oblivious of the fact how it would implement the judgment, despite its failure to secure the presence of the two parties before it to pursue their cases after November 1996.
"The evidence in the case was over in July 4, 1985 thereafter revision against closing of evidence was also dismissed on November 4, 1996. For these many years suit was pending at the stage of final arguments," the court noted while deciding the case in favour of Ram, who too had stopped attending the court since 1996.
"No advocate from either side addressed arguments. Even notices were also sent but none appeared to address arguments. Therefore the findings on issues will be given without hearing arguments," the court said while passing its judgment.
The court awarded the relief to Ram who had alleged that Taneja Skins Co. Private Ltd, based at Sadar Bazaar here, had sacked him in February 1975 after paying him salary only up to October 1974.

"The suit of Gobind Ram is decreed for the salary due and bonus payable cumulatively amounting to Rs 11,992 along with simple interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date on institution till the date of decision," the court said.
The judge also awarded compensation worth Rs 10,000 to him saying "Ram had to wait for 34 years to get relief."
Ram had filed the suit in 1977 seeking recovery of Rs 17,000 on account of salary, bonus and damages.
He had alleged that he was employed with the firm as a manager initially at monthly salary of Rs 1000 per month which was increased to Rs 1750 from July 1972. He had claimed he was wrongfully sacked from the service without any notice.
The firm, however, admitted that Ram was working in Amritsar but claimed that he had withdrawn various amounts from the company in excess of his salary. It denied that any amount was due to him from it.
The court dismissed the firm's contentions saying that "from the documents of Ram and defendant (firm), so far as the relief for recovery and bonus is concerned, same is fairly proved in favour of Ram."
The court, however, denied any damages regarding his termination from the job saying he has failed to prove this fact and he himself had admitted that he never made any representation against illegal termination of services before the firm.