J&K BANK LTD Vs. MOTI LAL WATTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -bank is resisting the suit of the respondent -plaintiff, Ex -Manager, for a decree of declaration that his dismissal from service was void, illegal and ineffective and for treating him in employment with all consequential benefits. The trial court framed seven issues in the suit on 4.5.1993. It, however, framed the following two additional issues on the application of the defendant on 4.9.1993:

(2.) THESE two issues were treated as preliminary and decided in favour of the plaintiff by the impugned order dated 27.1.1994. While doing so the trial court held the suit as maintainable in its present form and also within time. The defendant -bank feels aggrieved of this and has filed the present revision petition to question the legality of the impugned order.

(3.) PETITIONERS case in nutshell is that the trial court could not have held the suit in order as it was incapable of granting a declaration to the plaintiff in a case involving personal contract of service. His counsel, Mr. Sharma, argued that even if a contract of employment was wrongfully terminated, his remedy lay in an action for damages because the civil court had no power to specifically enforce the contract of service in violation of the bar imposed by Sec.21 (b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1979. He referred to the prayer clause in the plaint to show that the plaintiff had, infact, asked for a decree of reinstatement in service from the trial court which could not be granted and in the circumstances the court had no option but to dismiss the suit. He cited AIR 1981 SC 122, AIR 1980 SC 16, AIR 1982 Cal.174 and AIR 1976 A.P.321 in support. He did not, however, pursue the other point on the plea of limitation.