SANDEEP BATRA Vs. GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT application has been filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 11, Order 2 Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC) for rejection of the plaint. The facts giving rise to the present case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction challenging his termination by the defendant company vide letter dated 11.8.2000 before the Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. In the said suit, declaration was sought that the said letter be declared bad in law and by way of mandatory injunction he sought direction to be issued to the defendant to reinstate the plaintiff into the services and pay entire salary and by way of permanent injunction restrained order to be issued against the defendant from carrying out any recovery of housing loan from the plaintiff. Vide judgment dated 1.10.2004, the learned trial judge was pleased to decree the suit of the plaintiff as regards his relief for declaration holding that termination letter dated 11.8.2000 is bad in law being not in conformity with the terms and conditions of the appointment letter. However the suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction was dismissed in view of the provisions contained in Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act. The learned trial court also awarded one month's salary in lieu of the notice period and three months' salary at the rate last drawn as the nominal damages suffered by the plaintiff. It seems that an appeal is pending adjudication against the said judgment and decree before learned District Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. However, decree was prepared on 5.7.2006 after plaintiff paid the deficient court fees.

(2.) NOW by way of the present suit, plaintiff has claimed damages for termination of his services for the period from August 2000 when his services were terminated for a period of 74 months i.e. till the date of the filing of the present suit calculated at the rate of Rs. 35,000/-, the gross salary which the plaintiff was allegedly getting at the time of termination of his services.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant/defendant has argued that contract of employment is personal in nature and relief of damages as claimed by the plaintiff in the present suit was available to him when he filed suit for declaration and injunction in the year 2000. Since plaintiff did not claim damages in the said suit he is debarred from claiming damages by way of present suit by virtue of Order 2 Rule 2 and Section 11 of the CPC. He has referred to Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co. Ltd., Rae Bareli and another v. Badri Nath Dixit and others - AIR 1991 SC 1525, Emani Venkataramayya and another v. Lalbibi Saheba and others - Air 1935 Madras 90, K.V. George v. The Secrtary to Govt, Water and Power Dept. Trivandrum and another - AIR 1990 SC 53 and Haridas Mondal v. Anath Nath Mittra - AIR 1961 SC 1419 to support his submissions.