* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA No. 58/2014
% 18th February, 2014
SATISH KUMAR ...... Appellant
Through: None
VERSUS
M/S. GANDHI SMARAK NIDHI ...... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.3328/2014 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
C.M. stands disposed of.
+ RSA No.58/2014
2. No one was present for the appellant on the first call. No one is present for the appellant even on the second call at 1.00 P.M. I have therefore perused the record and am proceeding to dispose of this second appeal.
3. The admitted position which emerges from the concurrent RSA 58/2014 Page 1 of 2 judgments of the courts below is that the employer/respondent no.1 was a private employer and not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, it is a settled law that there cannot be enforcement of a contract of a person's services and which was prayed by the suit which is dismissed. The courts below have accordingly rightly held that at best the entitlement of the appellant/plaintiff, if he was wrongly terminated from services, was to claim damages and not to file a suit for reinstatement in services.
4. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal. No substantial question of law arises under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Appeal is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
FEBRUARY 18, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne
RSA 58/2014 Page 2 of 2