[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Virupaxappa vs The Chairman on 23 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:11208
RFA No. 255 of 2012
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 255 OF 2012 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI VIRUPAXAPPA
S/O AYYANAGOUDAMARKUMBI
(V.A. MARKUMBI)
AGE: 54 YEARS
OCC:WAS WORKING IN M.C.F. LTD AS
MARKETING OFFICER
AT AREA OFFICE HYDERABAD
UNDER T.NO. 1596, R/O SIDDAPURA
TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
1. THE CHAIRMAN
by AL BHAGYA MANGALORE CHEMICALS FERTILIZERS LTD
Location: HIGH 10/2, KASTURABA ROAD
COURT OF
KARNATAKA P.B.NO.5059, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
MANGALORE CHEMICALS FERTILIZERS LTD
10/2, KASTURABA ROAD
P.B. NO.5059, BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE VICE PRESIDENT (P & A)
MANGALORE CHEMICALS FERTILIZERS LTD
10/2, KASTURABA ROAD
P.B. NO.5059, BANGALORE-560 001.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:11208
RFA No. 255 of 2012
HC-KAR
4. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER (SHRI. C.M. NATARAJ)
MANGALORE CHEMICALS FERTILIZERS LTD
AREA OFFICE NO. 1-4-789/78
1ST FLOOR, GANDHI NAGAR, (NEAR PARK- II)
HYDERABAD-500 080.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
V/O DATED 09.01.2019 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R4 IS
HELD SUFFICIENT BY WAY OF PAPER PUBLICATION)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.10.2011 PASSED IN
O.S.8213/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DISMISSING THE
SUIT FOR THE DECLARATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
The captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff
assailing the dismissal of suit instituted in
O.S.No.8213/2001.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred
to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. Facts leading to the case are as under:
NC: 2026:KHC:11208
HC-KAR
The plaintiff asserts that he was appointed as a Sales
Representative in Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers
Ltd., and that he discharged his duties with utmost
diligence, integrity and efficiency, maintaining an
unblemished service record. According to him, he was
initially appointed as a Marketing Officer Trainee by order
dated 11.04.1986, which appointment was subsequently
confirmed, and he was later transferred to Kurnool District
in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is his specific case that
on 08.07.1998 he was served with a charge sheet
containing, according to him, baseless and reckless
allegations, and was placed under suspension pending
enquiry. The plaintiff contends that though he submitted
his reply dated 10.08.1998 to the Enquiry Officer, no
proper enquiry was conducted. He alleges that the Enquiry
Officer, without affording him reasonable opportunity and
without conducting a full-fledged enquiry, submitted his
report to the Disciplinary Authority. It is further alleged
that the Disciplinary Authority (defendant No.2), without
NC: 2026:KHC:11208
HC-KAR
furnishing a copy of the enquiry report and without
supplying relevant documents or granting an opportunity
of hearing, imposed the penalty of dismissal from service
by order dated 15.09.1998, effective from 18.09.1998.
The appeal preferred by the plaintiff before the Appellate
Authority/defendant No.1 came to be dismissed as time-
barred. In that backdrop, the plaintiff claims that a cause
of action arose to institute the present suit seeking
declaration that the order of dismissal and the appellate
order are null and void, together with a consequential
relief of reinstatement.
4. Upon service of summons, defendant Nos.1 to 3
entered appearance and filed a common written
statement. The defendants specifically contended that the
plaintiff was an employee in a private company and that
the relationship between the parties was purely that of
master and servant governed by a contract of personal
service. It was their categorical stand that such a contract
cannot be specifically enforced in a civil court and that
NC: 2026:KHC:11208
HC-KAR
reinstatement in service cannot be granted in respect of
private employment. On these premises, the defendants
sought dismissal of the suit as not maintainable.
5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial
Court framed appropriate issues, including Issue No.2
relating to the maintainability of the suit under Section 9
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In support of his
case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and relied
upon seventy documents marked as Exs.P-1 to P-70. The
defendants, in rebuttal, examined one official witness as
DW.1 and produced documents marked as Exs.D-1 to D-8.
6. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence and on consideration of the settled
legal position governing service disputes in private
employment, answered Issue No.2 against the plaintiff.
The Court held that the relief sought, in substance,
amounted to enforcement of a contract of personal
service, which is not specifically enforceable in a civil
NC: 2026:KHC:11208
HC-KAR
court. Placing reliance on authoritative pronouncements of
the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Trial Court concluded that the
suit was not maintainable and accordingly dismissed the
same. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the
plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on both
sides. Perused the pleadings and the entire oral and
documentary evidence on record. In the light of the rival
contentions, the following points arise for consideration in
this appeal:
(i) Whether the relief sought in the suit,
pertaining to dismissal from service in a private
company, is barred under Section 9 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908?
(ii) Whether the Trial Court was justified in
dismissing the suit on the ground that a civil court
cannot enforce a contract of personal service?
(iii) What order?
NC: 2026:KHC:11208
HC-KAR
Finding on Point Nos.(i) and (ii):
8. Before this Court adverts to the question of law
involved in the case on hand, this Court deems it fit to
advert to the prayer sought in the plaint filed in
O.S.No.8213/2001. The same reads as under:
"a. Declare that the order passed by the 2nd
Defendant dated 15/9/1998, in No.625/T.1596/157, is
null and void.
b. Declare that the order passed by the 1st
Defendant in Appeal filed by the plaintiff, is null and
void.
c. Direct the Defendants 1 & 2, to reinstate the
plaintiff to his original post.
d. Such other relief may kindly be passed under
the facts and circumstances of the case as deems fit, in
the interest of justice and equity."
9. Before adverting to the core question of law
that arises for consideration in this appeal, it would be
apposite to examine the precise nature of the relief sought
NC: 2026:KHC:11208
HC-KAR
in the plaint filed in O.S.No.8213/2001. The plaintiff has
sought a declaration that the order dated 15.09.1998
passed by defendant No.2 in No.625/T.1596/157 is null
and void; a further declaration that the order passed by
defendant No.1 in the appeal preferred by him is also null
and void; and a consequential direction to defendant Nos.1
and 2 to reinstate him to his original post. The tenor of the
prayer unmistakably reveals that the suit is one seeking to
invalidate the order of dismissal from service and to
secure reinstatement in a private employment.
10. On a meaningful and holistic reading of the
plaint averments in conjunction with the reliefs extracted
supra, it becomes abundantly clear that the plaintiff is, in
substance, challenging the termination order passed by
the Disciplinary Authority and the appellate order affirming
the same. The grievance projected is not one of recovery
of monetary benefits or damages, but one seeking
restoration to service. The entire foundation of the suit
rests upon the assertion that the departmental enquiry
NC: 2026:KHC:11208
HC-KAR
was vitiated and that the order of dismissal is illegal.
However, it is a settled principle of law, consistently
reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and by this Court,
that a civil court cannot enforce a contract of personal
service except in well-recognized exceptional categories.
Where the relationship between the parties is purely that
of master and servant in the realm of private employment,
the civil court's jurisdiction does not extend to granting
reinstatement or declaring termination orders as void with
a view to restore service.
11. In this context, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Karnataka Bank vs. T. Gopalakrishna Rao1
assumes significance. In the said case, the Honb'le Apex
Court had an occasion to consider the maintainability of a
civil suit filed by an employee of a private bank
challenging his dismissal. The Court authoritatively held
that where the employment is not governed by any statute
and is not covered by the provisions of the Industrial
ILR 1994 Kar 230
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11208
HC-KAR
Disputes Act, 1947 or any other special enactment, the
contract of employment remains a contract of personal
service. In such circumstances, even if the termination is
alleged to be illegal, the only remedy available to the
aggrieved employee is to seek damages for wrongful
termination. The employee cannot compel the employer to
continue him in service, nor can he insist upon
reinstatement through a civil suit. The ratio laid down
therein squarely applies to the facts of the present case.
12. Similarly, in Nandganj Sihori Sugar
Company Ltd., Rae Bareli and Another vs. Badrinath
Dixit and Others2, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the
well-settled principle that courts do not ordinarily enforce
contracts of personal employment. The Court emphasized
that specific performance of such contracts is barred, save
in exceptional circumstances such as, (i) when a public
servant is dismissed in contravention of Article 311 of the
Constitution, (ii) when a worker seeks reinstatement under
(1991) 3 SCC 54
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11208
HC-KAR
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or (iii) when a statutory
body acts in breach of mandatory statutory provisions.
Outside these limited exceptions, a contract of personal
service cannot be specifically enforced and the remedy is
confined to damages.
13. Applying the above principles to the case on
hand, it is not the case of the plaintiff that his employment
was statutory in character or that the defendant-company
is a statutory body governed by any service rules having
statutory force. The materials on record unmistakably
indicate that the plaintiff was employed in a private
company and that the relationship between the parties
was contractual. There is no pleading or proof to
demonstrate that the termination violated any statutory
provision so as to bring the case within the recognized
exceptions. In the absence of such foundational facts, the
civil court cannot undertake an adjudication on the validity
of the disciplinary proceedings with a view to grant
reinstatement. To do so would amount to specifically
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11208
HC-KAR
enforcing a contract of personal service, which is
impermissible in law. The plaintiff, if aggrieved by
wrongful termination, could at best seek damages, but
cannot seek a declaration of nullity of dismissal coupled
with reinstatement.
14. The learned Trial Judge has adverted to these
settled principles and has extensively referred to the
authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court
while answering Issue Nos.1 and 2. The reasoning
recorded by the Trial Court reflects a correct appreciation
of the legal position governing contracts of personal
service in private employment. The conclusions arrived at
are in consonance with the binding precedents and do not
suffer from any perversity or misapplication of law. This
Court, upon re-appreciation of the pleadings and evidence,
finds no infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the
findings recorded. Accordingly, Point Nos.(i) and (ii) are
answered in the Affirmative.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11208
HC-KAR
Finding on Point No.(iii):
15. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds
to pass the following:
ORDER
Appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
CA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22
