BIRLA JUTE INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment dated 16-3-2004 passed by District Judge, Neemuch in regular Civil Appeal No. 87-A/2002 whereby the judgment and decree dated 12-12-2001 passed by II Civil Judge, Class-I, Neemuch in Civil Suit No. 84-A/2000 whereby the suit filed by the respondent for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed, was set- aside and the suit filed by the respondent was decreed, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) THIS appeal was admitted for final hearing vide order dated 1-11-2008 on the following substantial questions of law :- 1. Whether the first Appellate Court erred in law in overlooking that a contract of employment cannot be enforced by a Civil Court? 2. Whether the first Appellate Court erred in law in granting relief overlooking the provision of the section 14 read with section 41 of Specific Relief Act? 3. Whether the first Appellate Court erred in law in holding that Ex.P/51, which was an information sent by respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant, can be said to be document changing service condition mentioned in the appointment letter (Ex.P/1)?

(3.) MR. S. C. Bagadia, learned senior counsel argued at length and submit that the impugned judgment passed by learned Appellate Court is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that learned Appellate Court committed error in entertaining the appeal and granting the relief. It is submitted that nobody can be compelled to remain in job against the wishes of employer by Civil Court. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli vs. Laksmi Narain, AIR 1976 SC 888 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that a contract of personal service cannot ordinarily be specifically enforced and a Court normally would not give a declaration that the contract subsists and the employee, even after having been removed from service can be deemed to be in service against the will and consent of the employer. This rule, however, is subject to three well recognized exceptions - (i) where a public servant is sought to be removed from service in contravention of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India; (ii) where a worker is sought to be reinstated in being dismissed under the Industrial Law; and (iii) where a statutory body acts in breach or violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute. Learned counsel further placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of M/s Pearlite Liners Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manorama Sirsi, 2004(3) MPLJ (SC) 367 = AIR 2004 SC 1373, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the declarative relief and permanent injunction relating to the services of private employment, observed that relief for declaration that employee continues to be in service of the company, amounts to enforcing a contract of personal service which is barred under the law. Reliance is also placed on a decision in the matter of Chief Engineer, Hydel Project vs. Ravinder Nath, 2008(2) MPLJ (SC) 251 = AIR 2008 SC 1315 wherein plaintiff was employed on work charged basis till completion of project. Upon termination of services suit for declaration that order of termination was null and void was filed wherein claim by employer that termination similiciter was effected in the light of Rules under Certified Standing Orders, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that dispute fell under premise of Industrial Disputes Act, Civil Court's jurisdiction is barred and suit is liable to be dismissed.