Delhi High Court
Surender Singh vs The Republic Of Indonesia on 27 September, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No. 819/2017 & CM Nos. 35149/2017 - 35151/2017
% 27th September, 2017
SURENDER SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S. Prasad, Advocate
versus
THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA ..... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
CM No. 35149/2017(Exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM stands disposed of.
CM No. 35151/2017(delay in filing the appeal)
For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the
appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
RFA No. 819/2017 & CM No. 35150/2017 (stay)
1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit
impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 28.2.2017 by which
the trial court decreed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for a sum
of Rs. 32 lakhs only for a sum of Rs. 2,94,720/- with interest.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff was
appointed as an Electrician with the Indonesian Embassy,
respondent/defendant. Apellant/plaintiff pleads that he was appointed
as a permanent employee to the post of Electrician on 22.6.1998 and
also got promotion as an Electrical Supervisor on 13.1.2011. It was
pleaded by the appellant/plaintiff that he had completed 15 years of
service till his unlawful termination by a verbal order.
Appellant/plaintiff therefore filed the suit seeking relief of
reinstatement, damages of Rs. 25 lakhs etc. The relief clauses of the
plaint read as under:-
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleaded to pass the following reliefs : -
a. Pass a decree in the favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant to re-instate him with the retrospective effect;
b. Pass a decree in the favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant to pay PLAINTIFF's salary since 30-04-2012 i.e. the date of
the termination alongwith the pendentelite and further 18% interest p.a.
till its final realization;
c. Pass a decree in the favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant to pay Rs. 1,15,000/- towards the medical expenses to the
PLAINTIFF which he spent on the treatment of his family alongwith the
pendentelite and further 18% intereest p.a. till its final realization;
d. Pass a decree in the favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- on account of loss of phusical
as well mental health of the PLAINTIFF, loss of reputation and to live
mierably without any regular source of income for the upbringing his
family and the education of his children alongwith the pendentelite and
further 18% interest p.a. till its final realization;
e. Pass a decree in the favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant to give proper benefits of his 15 yrs. service;
f. Pass a decree in the favour of the plaintiff and agaisnt the
defendant to treat plaintiff as per the law of the land for the welfare of the
employees/worker;
g. Pass any other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case."
3. It is seen that the trial court by the impugned judgment
has granted the relief to the appellant/plaintiff of payment of 15
months salary on account of 15 years service, with each months salary
for each year of service being granted as gratuity. Last drawn salary
the appellant/plaintiff was Rs. 19,648/- per month and accordingly
multiplying this figure to the figure of 15 months, the suit was hence
decreed for Rs. 2,94,720/- along with interest at 9% from the date of
filing of the suit till its realization.
4. Admittedly, the service contract shows that the service
can be terminated by one months notice. Services of the
appellant/plaintiff were terminated vide letter dated 1.5.2012. I may
note that service rules contained in the model contract form were
proved before the trial court as Ex.PW1/14 (colly) and which
contained the relavant clauses 9 and 10. Therefore there is no
illegality in the termination of services of the appellant/plaintiff,
inasmuch as, once there is a clause of termination of service by one
month's notice the services of the employee can be terminated by
giving one month's notice or salary in lieu thereof. Even if there is
breach of contract by terminating service without one month's notice,
yet the damages which can be awarded in law is the salary for one
month only vide the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.S.
Shetty vs. Bharat Nidhi Ltd., AIR 1958 SC 12. The relevant para of
this judgment is para 12 and which para reads as under:-
"12. The position as it obtains in the ordinary law of master and servant
is quite clear. The master who wrongfully dismisses his servant is bound to
pay him such damages as will compensate him for the wrong that he has
sustained. "They are to be assessed by reference to the amount earned in the
service wrongfully terminated and the time likely to elapse before the
servant obtains another post for which he is fitted. It if the contract
expressly provices that it is terminable upon, e.g., a month's notice, the
damages will ordinarily be a month's wages...No compensation can be
claimed in respect of the injury done to the servant's feelings by the
circumstances of his dismissal, nor ain respect of extra difficulty or finding
work resulting from thos circumstances. A servant who has been wrongfully
dismissed must use diligence to seek another employment, and the fact that
he has been offered a suitable post may be taken into account in assessing
the damages."
5. Also, it is trite that a private contract of personal service
cannot be specifically enforced and hence there cannot be
reinstatement amounting to grant of relief for specific performance.
This is the legal position in view of the relevant provisions of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 including Sections 14 and 41 thereof.
6. In my opinion, therefore, appellant/plaintiff was not
entitled to the relief of reinstatement in service and other related
reliefs.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff argued that the
appellant/plaintiff in terms of prayer clause has prayed for service
benefits of 15 years, however, counsel for the appellant/plaintiff could
not point out to me any averments in plaint as to which is the specific
service benefit which is pleaded to be a cause of action and as per
which contract and which when denied by the respondent/defendant
which will entitle the appellant/plaintiff to the said relief/benefit but
no such averments could be pointed out to this Court. Therefore, once
no cause of action is pleaded in the plaint as to any particular service
benefit, except ofcourse the benefit of gratuity, and which has already
been granted by the impugned judgment, and thus no other or further
relief can be granted to the appellant/plaintiff.
8. There is no merit in the appeal. Dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 27, 2017 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
godara
