The Learned Civil Judge, Tis Hazari, District Court (Central) has held that a suit for declaration and consequential relief for recovery of damage/compensation for illegal termination amounts to enforcing a contract of personal service and is barred under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act. The appellant, plaintiff in the original suit, alleged illegal termination of services by the defendant company. The appellant contended that the termination was illegal since he was terminated without an inquiry.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The appellant had filed an appeal against M/s. Bennatt Coleman to challenge the judgment of Civil Judge which dismissed the suit of the appellant for declaration and mandatory injunction. The appellant is the plaintiff in the original suit, and the respondent is the defendant in the original suit.
The plaintiff was terminated by the defendant company following which he presented a case of unjust termination and the Labour Reconciliation Officer awarded in his favour, but the High Court set it aside. After several legal proceedings, the Labour Court awarded reinstatement with full benefits until superannuation in 1995. However, subsequent challenges resulted in the award being set aside by the High Court.
The plaintiff sought a declaration of illegal termination and a mandatory injunction for reinstatement with back wages. The trial court dismissed the suit, leading to the present appeal.
Contentions of the Parties:
The appellant contended that the trial court failed to recognize the argument that the respondent, with malicious intent, issued the termination letter aimed at retaliating against the appellant for filing a complaint against a senior officer. The appellant asserted that the respondent skipped a proper inquiry and directly terminated his services.
The appellant argued that the trial court overlooked the contention that the High Court of Delhi set aside the Labour court's award based on technical grounds rather than merits. The appellant emphasises the value of the Labour Court's findings, thrice in favour of the appellant, asserting that the termination was illegal and unjustified. The appellant criticizes the trial court for narrowly interpreting the suit's prayer clause and not considering the appellant's intention, suggesting that any drafting lacuna should not penalize the appellant.
Observations by the Court:
The Court framed several issues to determine whether the termination of the plaintiff's services was illegal, whether the plaintiff was entitled to benefits and wage revision, and whether a mandatory injunction for reinstatement should be granted.
The Court observed that the appellant, dissatisfied with the trial court's decision, challenged it on various grounds. The appellant had argued that the termination letter was issued with malafide intent, seeking to teach a lesson for filing a complaint against a senior officer. Additionally, the appellant contended that the High Court's decision on technical grounds did not disturb the Labour Court's findings.
However, the appellate court found that the appellant had not raised some of these arguments during the trial, making them impermissible on appeal. The court also referenced the precedent that a contract of personal service, such as employment, cannot be specifically enforced except in certain exceptions, none of which applied to the appellant. The court ultimately concluded that the termination was not illegal and upheld the trial court's decision to dismiss the suit, including the denial of the claims for benefits, wage revision, and reinstatement. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
The Decision of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned judgment passed by Trial Court to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff did not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. The impugned judgment was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: Yadeshwar Kumar vs. Bennatt Coleman Co. Ltd.
Coram: Learned Ms. Upasana Satija, JSCC/ASCJ/GJ (Central) Tis Hazari Court, Delhi
Case no.: RCA No. 1228/16
Advocates for the Respondent: Sh. Raj Birbal and Ms. Raavi Birbal, Ld.
Read Order @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
