Smt. Shobhadevi W/O Sharadprasad vs Hindi Prasarak Manual, Berar ...
2003 Latest Caselaw 434 Bom

JUDGMENT

V.M. Kanade, J.

1. The appellant is the original plaintiff and respondents are the original defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendants.

2. The facts, in brief, are as under :

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for declaration that she was in continuous service and for damages which were quantified in respect of the salary which was not paid to her for the period of 11 months. The defendant No. 1 Society is registered under the Societies Registration Act and the defendant No. 2 is a Member of the Executive Committee of the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 runs a High School at Yavatmal known as Angle Hindi High School, Yavatmal. The plaintiff was a teacher teaching in the said School and she was appointed on 7th September, 1966 in a clear vacancy. The case of the plaintiff is that at the end of the session of 1966-67 she was informed that her services are discontinued. However, no written order was given to her. The plaintiff continued to work in the said School till 30th April, 1968. The Management again served a Notice of termination with effect from 1st of May, 1968. When the plaintiff enquired as to why her services were terminated, the defendant No. 2 informed her that it was a routine matter and that she should see him in June, 1968 and that she would be continued in service in the next year as a matter of course. Defendant No. 2, however, informed her that the Management, would continue her in service provided she donated 2 months' vacation salary to the School Funds and secondly on the condition that she should give a letter of resignation addressed to the President of the defendant No. 1 without putting any date on the said letter. She complied with the said request and continued to work. However, the services of the plaintiff were terminated. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the present suit.

3. Defendant No. 1 filed its Written Statement and denied the pleadings.

4. The Trial Court framed issues and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court and the said appeal was allowed. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order by the Second Additional District Judge, Yavatmal, has preferred this Second Appeal.

5. This Second Appeal was admitted on 25.9.1990. At the time of admission, the following order was passed.

Admit on the point of contract of service in view of the fake resignation letter.

6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has taken me through the Judgment and Order of the Trial Court as well as of the Lower Appellate Court. He submitted that both the Courts had come to the conclusion that the resignation letter was obtained before hand. He submitted that the Trial Court had decreed the suit. However, the Appellate Court had on technical issue allowed the appeal of defendant No. 1. He submitted that the plaintiff was entitled to get a declaration that she was in continuous service with the defendant No. 1.

7. The law relating to the specific relief in respect of contract of service is codified in the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which is a self contained code in respect of grant of specific relief of contract. Section 14 specifically enumerates the contracts which cannot be specifically enforced. Section 14(b) reads as under :

14(b) a contract which runs into such minute or numerous details or which is so dependent on the personal qualification or volition of the parties, or otherwise from its nature is such, that the Court cannot enforce specific performance of its material terms;

Section 14(b) thus deals with the personal volition of the parties and consistent view which has been taken by the Apex Court is that in case of contract of service it is not permissible for the Court to grant specific performance in the cases where there is a loss of confidence between the parties.

8. In the present case, the plaintiff has filed the suit seeking specific  performance of her contract of service and the declaration sought therefore would very clearly be covered by the provisions of Section 14(b) of the Specific Relief Act.

9. The Lower Appellate Court by relying on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Deepakkumar Biswas v. Director of Public Institutions and Ors. , Ku. Regina v. St. Aloysius High School, and Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli and Ors. v. Lakshmi Narain and Ors. AIR 1976 SC 888 : 1976 (2) S.C.R. 1006 : 1976 (2) SCC 58 : 1976 L.I.C. 576 : 1976 (2] L.L.J. 163 : 1976 (1) L.L.N. 474, has held that although the Institutions which receive aid from the Government, do not become Statutory Bodies and, therefore, personal contract of service entered which such Institutions could not be specifically enforced.

10. If must be noted here that at the relevant time when the suit was filed i.e. in the year 1972 there was no Act or Statute which regulated the conditions of service between a teacher and private school. The only other guidelines which were in existence were in the nature of executive instructions, which were issued by the Government in the form of Secondary Schools Code. However, it. is an admitted position that even the Secondary Schools Code was in the nature of executive instructions and did not have statutory force. In this view of the matter, the plaintiff at the most had a remedy of approaching the authorities which were enumerated in the Secondary Schools Code and the Lower Appellate Court, therefore, has rightly held that the suit for specific performance in respect of the contract of service was not maintainable. There is, therefore, no merit in 1he submissions made on behalf of the appellant. The Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.