Ashish Goel vs Railtel Corporation Of India ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 855 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         WP(C) No.2752/2010

%                                                        February 20, 2013

      ASHISH GOEL                                          ..... Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. Harit Chhabra, Adv.

                          versus

      RAILTEL CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.AND ANOTHER
                                              ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Biswajit Das, Adv. for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. This writ petition seeks refund of the amount of Rs.50,000/-

given by the petitioner to the respondent No.1/employer inasmuch as the

petitioner left the services within the period of two years, and the terms and

conditions were that if the petitioner leaves the service before two years, the

petitioner will pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-.

2. Before the issue of recovery or entitlement in favour of the

petitioner is decided, it will have to be decided whether the respondent has

or has not been caused any loss, and if loss has been caused then how much.

These aspects are relevant as per Sections 73 and 74 of the Contract Act,

1872 and which provisions will come into play. These questions are

disputed questions of fact which require evidence to be led by the parties and

which cannot conveniently be decided in a writ petition.

3. In my opinion, matters such as these contractual matters have to

be decided by the civil forum i.e. either by the Civil Court or through

arbitration inasmuch as counsel for the respondent No.1 states that there

was an arbitration clause in the contract of appointment.

4. In contractual matters the issue of hostile discrimination does

not arise as forfeiture is dependent on facts of each case. Moreover, the

concept of equality under Article 14 is a positive concept and Article 14

cannot be taken aid of to commit an illegality, assuming someone else has

not been imposed the bond condition. There is also no violation of any

policy which is alleged in the petition.

5. Dismissed with the aforesaid observations giving liberty to the

petitioner to approach the appropriate forum.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J FEBRUARY 20, 2013 ak