Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court: Suit Before Trial Court For Recovery Of Damages For Wrongful Termination Not Maintainable In Law In Absence Of Declaratory Relief
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court allowed a Civil First Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Trial Court which decreed a Suit.
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a Suit before the Trial Court for grant of decree for recovery of damages for wrongful termination is not maintainable in law in absence of prayer of declaratory relief.
The Court held thus in a Civil First Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Trial Court which decreed a Suit.
A Single Bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul observed, “… as could be seen from the prayer sought for in the original suit, the plaintiff has not sought for declaratory relief to declare the termination of his services as bad in law. In the absence of such prayer by the plaintiff the original suit filed by him before the trial Court for grant of decree for recovery of damages for wrongful termination is not maintainable in law.”
The Bench noted that in a contract of personal service, the Court normally would not give a declaration that the contract subsists and employee even after having been removed from service can be deemed to be in service against will and consent of the employer and this case does not fall in any of the recognised exceptions narrated by the Supreme Court in its Judgment.
Advocate Dheeraj Sharma represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate V.R. Wazir represented the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The Trial Court had decreed a Suit of the Plaintiff/Respondent and declared his dismissal from the Appellant/Bank as illegal and the Plaintiff was declared entitled to be reinstated as also entitled to the damages. In this case, the Plaintiff had filed a Suit before the Trial Court stating that he joined the Bank as an Accountant in 1970 and after nine months, he was given a chance to officiate as a Manager of the New Bank. He resigned in 1975, but the Bank refused to accept his resignation until he adjusted unauthorized advances.
The Plaintiff withdrew his resignation but the bank thereafter dismissed him. He then filed a Suit claiming damages for wrongful dismissal. The bank contested the Suit, pleading that it was barred under Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA) and was also time-barred. It was alleged by the Appellant that the Trial Court proceeded on an incorrect assumption that the dismissal was wrongful. It was further submitted that the Suit was only for recovery of damages, but the Trial Court ordered reinstatement.
Reasoning
The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, said, “A contract of private employment is not similar to the public employment and in such private employment there is no scope of applicability of the principles of administrative law/public law. A contract of employment which provides termination of services by one month's notice, then, at best the employee will only be entitled to one month’s pay in terms of the employment contract. An employee is not entitled to any relief of continuation in services or pay with consequential benefits for alleged remaining period of services till the date of his superannuation.”
The Court further noted that as per Section 14(1)(c) of SRA, a contract which is determinable in nature cannot be specifically enforced and since the service contract in this case is determinable by one month’s notice, there does not arise the question of giving any reliefs which tantamount to enforcement of a determinable contract.
“It is not in dispute that the order of termination has not been challenged in the suit, and further the plaintiff has not prayed for his reinstatement. He has only sought for damages on account of wrongful dismissal. It is an admitted fact that the contract between the appellant-bank and the respondent-plaintiff was a contract for personal service determinable by one month notice”, it also said.
The Court was of the opinion that this case is a private employment which normally would be governed by the terms of the contract between the parties and since there is no written contract between the parties on record, the dispute cannot be resolved with reference to any terms and conditions governing the relationship between the parties.
“The plaintiff has neither pleaded nor has there been any effort on his part to show that the impugned order of dismissal was in violation of any terms of his employment. He has only pleaded that there was no mention of his withdrawing his resignation in his letter of termination”, it added.
The Court observed that the only remedy for the Plaintiff was to seek declaration of his termination as wrongful, with consequential relief of the damages for wrongful termination and without seeking the said relief of declaration, the Suit could not be held as maintainable.
“The Trial Court has ventured into area which was not germane to the facts. The suit is a simpliciter suit for recovery of damages. The Trial Court has travelled beyond its realm by declaring the termination bad and allowing entitlement for reinstatement, which was never prayed for”, it remarked.
The Court, therefore, held that the Suit filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent is not maintainable under law.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the Trial Court’s Judgment, and dismissed the Suit.
Cause Title- Punjab National Bank v. V.K. Gandotra (Case Number: CFA No. 08/2009)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate Dheeraj Sharma
Respondent: Senior Advocate V.R. Wazir and Advocate Rajat Sudan.
