Jaiveer Srivastava vs Union Of India & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 7046 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+       LPA 653/2016 & CM Nos.43332-34/2016

        JAIVEER SRIVASTAVA
                                                      ..... Appellant

                             Through:     Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with
                                          Mr. Mathew K., Ms. Smrithi
                                          Suresh, Mr. Deepak Grover and
                                          Ms. Aakashi Lodha, Advs.

                    versus

        UNION OF INDIA & ORS
                                                      ..... Respondents

                             Through:     Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with Ms.
                                          Mohita, Adv. for UOI
                                          Mr. Ritin Rai with Mr. Aabhas
                                          Kshetrapal, Advs. for R-2

CORAM:-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

                             ORDER

%                            22.11.2016

CM Nos.43334/2016

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

CM No.43332/2016 This is an application filed by the appellant under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to bring the additional facts and documents on record. The same is allowed. Application stands disposed of.

LPA 653/2016

1. The challenge in this appeal is, to the order dated November 07, 2016 in W.P 10530/2016 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated November 02, 2016 (read with corrigendum dated November 04, 2016) vide which, the petitioner's appointment as Chairman and Managing Director of respondent No.3-Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited was terminated.

2. The learned Single Judge, had noted that the employment between the parties was governed by the terms of employment and clause 1.1 thereof, stipulated that the services of the appellant can be terminated by giving a three months notice or on payment of three months salary in lieu thereof.

3. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge has erred in relying upon clause 1.1 of the terms and conditions of appointment, inasmuch as such a stipulation is unconscionable and held to be illegal in terms of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Anr vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Anr (1986) 3 SCC 156; DTC vs. DTC Majdoor Congress AIR 1991 SC 101; Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd. And Ors vs. Partha Sarathi Sen Roy and Ors (2013) 8 SCC 345.

4. From the perusal of the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that in those cases, the appointment of the incumbent(s) was of permanent nature, unlike in this case where the appointment was tenural, for a period of five years. Moreover, in the case in hand, there is a clear stipulation in the terms of the appointment that the appointment can be terminated by either

side with a three months notice or on payment of three months salary in lieu thereof. The judgments are not applicable to the facts of this case as being distinguishable. That apart, it is not the case of the appellant that the three months salary has not been paid to the appellant.

5. The plea of Mr. Dayan Krishnan that the appointment has been made by the President of India after it was approved by the ACC, is of no consequence as the same would not change the nature of appointment i.e a contractual/tenural with a clause of termination. Suffice to state, the power being there with the competent authority to terminate the appointment of the appellant, the conclusion of the learned Single Judge is justified. There is no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed. CM No.43333/2016 (for stay) Dismissed as infructuous.

CHIEF JUSTICE

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

NOVEMBER 22/2016/ak