K T CHANDY Vs. MANSA RAM ZADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seemingly it is a small case. It has not hit the headlines in the news media. Nor it has gripped the public mind. The pecuniary stake is trivial. A tiny sum of Rs. 200/- is payable as costs by the appellant. However, this case brings into the flash point an issue of great consequence to liberty of contract:Where to draw the dividing line between the area of Contempt of court and the area of operation of contractual rights.

(2.) The appellant is the Chairman of the Hindustan Steel Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company). The respondent was employed in the Company on a contract of service. The contract provided for termination of his service by giving three months' notice or three months; pay in lieu thereof and without assigning any cause. On February 21, 1968, the Company gave him this notice:

(3.) Soon thereafter he rushed to the Court. On May 27, 1968 he instituted a suit in the Court of the Second Munsif, Asansol. The material reliefs claimed in the plaint are: