Satpal Gupta v. Managing Committee, Sh.G.R.S.D. High School & Ors.

dismissed by the Director at the first instance or that the same was subsequently not maintainable on this ground. The suit was tried on the following issues:-

1. Whether the order dated 27.11.75 is illegal and void for the reasons stated in the plain? OPP.

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.

3. Whether the suit is barred by time? OPP.

4. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit? OPD.

5. Whether the suit is false and frivolous? OPD.

6. Relief. As already noted, the suit was decreed against which the appeal was filed. The appellate Court, however, has reversed the finding of the trial Court and accordingly, the appellant has filed these two appeals to challenge the order passed in separate appeal filed by the management as well as by Satya Varat Bhardwaj. Counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that having decided the factual issue in favour of the appellant, the First Appellate Court was not justified in allowing the appeal on the ground that the suit as formulated would not be maintainable and the only relief which could be sought would be for damages. The counsel has referred to the observation made in para 13 of the impugned Regular Second Appeal No. 1012 of 1987 5 judgment where this fact would come out that while passing the order retaining Satya Varat Bhardwaj, Director had not afforded opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The question to be determined in my view is to see whether the finding returned by the First Appellate Court about the maintainability of the suit in the form as constituted is justified in law or not. The case titled as Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College Shamli vs. Lakshmi Narain and others AIR 1976 S.C. 888 was relied upon and referred to define the terms statutory body. It is observed that the statutory body is one which is created by or under the statute and owes its existence to statute. The distinction has been drawn between the institution which is not created by or under a statute but is governed by certain statutory provisions for the proper maintenance and administration of the institution. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, later institution is not the statutory character. Having said so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court commenting to the scope of discretionary relief under the Specific Relief Act and observed as under:- “ 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.” Reference is also made to the observations made in this judgment, which are as under: “The relief of declaration and injunction under the Regular Second Appeal No. 1012 of 1987 6 provisions of the Specific Relief Act is purely discretionary and the plaintiff cannot claim it as of right. The relief has to be granted by the Court according to sound legal principles and ex-debite justice. The Court has to administer justice between the parties and cannot convert itself into an instrument of injustice of an engine of oppression. In these circumstances, while exercising its discretionary powers, the Court must keep in mind the well settled principles only if the ends of justice require for justice is not an object which can be administered in vacuum.” On the basis of the above authority and the other authorities relied upon by the First Appellate Court, it was held that there being no relationship of master and servant between the Managing Committee and the appellant, the suit for declaration that he continues to be in service, was not maintainable. It is observed that his remedy was by way of suit for damages, if it was felt that there was a breach of the terms of agreement. When confronted with this legal position, the counsel could not point out any infirmity in the view as taken by the Court. Thus I do not find any justification to interfere in the view taken by the Court. It has been rightly observed that contract of service cannot be enforced and at the most person who is wrongly terminated is entitled to seek damages. The right to seek the damages by the appellant thus has been recognized and he may be at liberty to seek the same relief if so advised and if otherwise permissible under law. Regular Second Appeal No. 1012 of 1987 7 No case for interference is made out. The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. April 28, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE