Delhi High Court
Narottam Singh Bakshi vs Corporate Personnel Manager ... on 4 February, 2015
Author: V.K.Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ R.S.A. No.36/2015
Decided on : 4th February, 2015
NAROTTAM SINGH BAKSHI ..... Appellant
Through: Dr.M.Y.Khan, Adv.
versus
CORPORATE PERSONNEL MANAGER ENGINEER INDIA LTD
AND ANR ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
C.M. No1387/2015
1. Allowed subject to deficiency being rectified.
2. The application stands disposed of.
R.S.A. No.36/2015
1. This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant against the
judgment dated 24.09.2014 passed by the learned ADJ in RCA
No.10/2013 by virtue of which the order dated 14.03.2013 passed by
the learned Civil Judge in Suit No.1293/06/85 was upheld.
R.S.A. No.36/2015 Page 1
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that
the appellant has been non-suited after a lapse of 28 years on the
preliminary ground that the appellant is not protected by Article 311
of the Constitution of India or under the industrial laws or that his
termination is not in breach of any express provision of the statute
and, therefore, he is not entitled to protection under the civil law. It
has also been observed by the learned court that the contract for
personal service cannot be specifically enforced and consequently the
appellant has been left remediless. It is contended that on account of
the delayed decision passed by the two courts below, the appellant
cannot be made remediless and, therefore, the matter needs
consideration.
3. Before dealing with the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellant, it will be pertinent to give the brief
background of the case.
4. The appellant was employed with M/s Engineers India Limited.
His services were allegedly terminated on account of absenteeism as
he had failed to report for duty after availing leave. The appellant
filed a suit for declaration challenging his termination and seeking the
R.S.A. No.36/2015 Page 2
relief that he should be deemed to be in service. The aforesaid suit of
the appellant was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on 14.03.2013
holding that the appellant in fact was seeking specific performance of
a contract of personal service which cannot be specifically enforced in
view of Sections 14 & 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Accordingly, the suit of the appellant was dismissed. The appellant
feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order preferred an appeal which
was also unsuccessful as the same was also rejected by the first
appellate court vide order dated 24.09.2014.
5. Still not feeling satisfied, the present appeal has been filed.
Second appeal is permissible only if a substantial question of law is
involved. The submission which has been made by the learned
counsel for the appellant does not involve any question of law much
less a substantial question of law.
6. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant
that in a situation like this where the suit of the appellant is dismissed
on the ground that he is trying to seeking enforcement of a contract of
personal service, the appellant does not become remediless. As a
matter of fact, the appellant ought to have availed the alternative
R.S.A. No.36/2015 Page 3
remedy of seeking damages where by establishing that he services
had been illegally terminated, he would have got damages. This relief,
incidentally and curiously, has not been claimed by the appellant. The
appellant also had to keep in mind that Order 2 Rule 2 CPC
specifically lays down that unless and until permission to seek part of
relief is granted in a suit, the party must necessarily seek all the reliefs
in the first suit failing which they will be deemed to have been given
up.
7. In the instant case, since the relief of damages was not claimed
by the appellant in the suit itself, therefore, the prayer of the appellant
for grant of payment of damages could not be considered assuming
that his termination was illegal.
8. For the reasons mentioned above, I am satisfied that there is no
substantial question of law involved in the matter.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J
FEBRUARY 04, 2015/dm
R.S.A. No.36/2015 Page 4
