Judgement

MATHEW, J. :- The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, challenging the validity of a resolution passed on 12-11-1967 by the Managing committee of the Jai Narain College, Lucknow, formerly known as Kanyakubja Degree College, an associated college of the Lucknow University, terminating his services, and praying for issue of an appropriate writ or order quashing the resolution. A learned single Judge of that Court, finding that in terminating the services, the Managing Committee acted in violation of principles of natural justice, quashed the resolution and allowed the writ petition. The Managing Committee appealed against the order. A Division Bench of the High Court found that the relationship between the College and the appellant was that of master and servant and that even if the service of the appellant has been terminated in breach of the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice, the remedy of the appellant was to file a suit for damages and not to apply under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ or order in the nature of certiorari and that in fact no principle of natural justice was violated by terminating the services of the appellant as the appellant was given an opportunity of submitting his explanation to the charges. The Bench, therefore set aside the order of the learned single Judge and dismissed the writ petition. It is from this judgment that the appeal has been preferred by special leave.

2. The appellant joined the service of the college as lecturer in 1946. He was promoted to the post of Head of the Department of Zoology in 1959. On the basis of certain complaints against him received by the Manager of the College, charges were framed against him and his explanation was called for. He submitted an explanation. The explanation was found not to be satisfactory and the Managing Committee passed a resolution on 12-11-1967 for removal of the appellant from service. As already stated, this was the resolution challenged by the appellant in the writ petition.

3. On behalf of the appellant Mr. M. C. Setalvad, contended that the appellant had a statutory status, that his services were terminated in violation of the provisions of statutes passed under the Lucknow University Act, 1920 and, therefore, the High Court was wrong in its conclusions that no application for a writ or order in the nature of certiorari would lie. He further submitted that the appellant was not given a reasonable opportunity of defending himself against the charges.

4. It is well settled that, when there is a purported termination of a contract of service, a declaration that the contract of service still subsisted would not be made in the absence of special circumstances, because of the principle that Courts do not ordinarily enforce specific performance of contracts of service (see Executive Committee of U.P. State Warehousing Corpn. Ltd. v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, (1970) 2 SCR 250 and Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai AIR 1971 SC 1328). If the master rightfully ends the contract, there can be no complaint. If the master wrongfully ends the contract, then the servant can pursue a claim for damages. So even if the master wrongfully dismisses the servant in breach of the contract, the employment is effectively terminated. In Ridge v. Baldwin, (1963) 2 WLR 935, Lord Reid said in his speech :

The law regarding master and servant is not in doubt. There cannot be specific performance of a contract of service, and the master can terminate the contract with his servant at any time and for any reason or for none. But if he does so in a manner not warranted by the contract he must pay damages for breach of contract. So the question in a pure case of master and servant does not at all depend on whether the master has heard the servant in his own defence; it depends on whether the facts emerging at the trial prove breach of contract. But this kind of case can resemble dismissal from an office w