Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.GOPAL RAO
Guntur Tobacco Market Committee - Appellant
Versus
Yarabothu Narasaiah - Respondent
Decided On : 07-21-64
CONTRACT OF PERSONAL SERVICE - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - SECTION 42 - SECTION 21 - MAINTAINABILITY OF SUIT - LEGAL CHARACTER - CONTRACT OF PERSONAL SERVICE - APPOINTMENT AND PUNISHMENT OF SERVANTS - MARKET COMMITTEE - POWERS OF COMMITTEE - BYE-LAWS - VALIDITY - AGENDA - OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, an accountant in the Guntur Tobacco Market Committee, was dismissed from service by a resolution of the committee. He filed a suit for a declaration that the resolution was illegal and inoperative and that he continued to be their servant and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to hold a fresh enquiry giving all facilities to the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court held that the suit was not maintainable and that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief sought. The lower appellate court allowed the appeal and held that the committee had no powers to punish the plaintiff, that no reasonable opportunity was provided to the plaintiff and that the resolution was illegal because the matter was not on the agenda at all.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit is maintainable under Sections 42 and 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963? 2. Whether the committee had the power to punish the plaintiff? 3. Whether the plaintiff was given reasonable opportunity to defend himself? 4. Whether the matter was on the agenda?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A suit for a declaration that the plaintiff continues to be a servant of the committee does not lie under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as it is not a legal character regarding which a declaration can be given by the civil court. 2. A contract of personal service cannot be specifically enforced under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 3. The committee is the appointing authority and therefore was entitled to punish the plaintiff as he was found to be guilty of the charges. 4. The plaintiff was given reasonable opportunity to defend himself. 5. The matter was on the agenda.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge was set aside and that of the trial Court was restored.
( 2 ) THE defendant in his written statement raised various pleas. It was contended that the suit is time barred, that the suit is time barred, that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain such suit, that reasonable opportunity was provided to the plaintiff that his conduct was most objectionable, that he was guilty of several omissions and commissions which the Committee found against him, that no suit under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act lies and that the plaintiff cannot impose himself on the Committee as a servant.
( 3 ) UPON these pleadings, the trial court framed several issues and after recording the evidence complained of is neither illegal nor void. It was found that the civil court cannot grant a declaratory decree as sought by the plaintiff. he also held that the suit is time barred.
( 4 ) DISSATISFIED with that judgment, the plaintiff carried the matter in appeal before the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur. The learned Subordinate Judge allowing the appeal held that the committee had no powers to punish the plaintiff that no reasonable opportunity was provided to the plaintiff and that the resolution is illegal because the matter was not on the agenda at all. It is this view of the learned Subordinate Judge that is now as sailed in the second appeal.
( 5 ) THREE contentions are raised before me by Mr. O. Chinnappa Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant. It was firstly urged that the suit as present constituted is not maintainable both under Sections 21 and 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The second contention was that it is the committee which is the appointing authority and therefore was entitled to punish the plaintiff as he was found to be guilty of the charges. It was finally urged that the plaintiff was given reasonable opportunity and that the Committee took into account the entire record and as the matter was on the agenda disposed it of by inflicting the punishment as is mentioned in the impugned resolution. I will deal with these contentions in the order in which they wer
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
