Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1083
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (KALABURAGI BENCH)
Ravi V. Hosmani, J.
Teresa Joseph - Appellant
Versus
Rajashree Vidyamandir - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 2314 of 2007
Decided On : 02-06-2020
Vinayak Apte, Advocate, Pramod N Kathavi, Advocate
A contract of personal service is not specifically enforceable in a civil suit, and the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a suit seeking a declaration regarding the order of termination from private service.
Headnote:
CPC - Appeal against dismissal of suit for declaration of illegal dismissal from service - Section 100 - Education Act - Suit dismissed on grounds of limitation and lack of jurisdiction - Additional substantial question of law framed on enforceability of personal services in civil court - Plaintiff's appeal dismissed
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a teacher, was dismissed from service and filed a suit seeking declaration that the dismissal order was illegal and void ab initio. Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissed the suit on grounds of limitation and lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff appealed under Section 100 of CPC.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the suit was dismissed on the ground of limitation, and an additional substantial question of law was framed on the enforceability of personal services in a civil court. The Court upheld the dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
Issues: The issues involved were the dismissal of the suit on the ground of limitation, lack of jurisdiction, and the enforceability of personal services in a civil court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the suit was barred by limitation and lacked jurisdiction as the only relief sought for, a declaration of illegal dismissal, could not be granted by the Civil Court. The Court also found that the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed based on a proper appreciation of the facts and applicable law.
Final Decision: The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
Ravi V. Hosmani, J. - This appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2007 passed in R.A. No.68/2006 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Sedam, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order dated 07.07.2006 passed in O.S. No.7/2004 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Sedam.
2. The appellant was the plaintiff and respondent Nos.1 and 2 were defendant Nos.1 and 2 before the Trial Court.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred henceforth according to their ranks before the Trial Court.
4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows: The plaintiff was appointed as a teacher by the defendants in the year 1990. She was working to the satisfaction of the management. Her husband C.S. Joseph was an employee of Rajashree Cement Works, Adityanagar, Malkhed. He was always harassing and illtreating her. Since, the school administration is with Rajashree Cement Works, he was having capacity to influence the decision of the Management. He wanted to get rid of her either by divorce or otherwise. Thus he began to harass her through the school management. At his instance, the staff and management began making false and baseless allegations against her. On 27.11.1998, she was issued with the articles of charge. The charges were trivial, vague and did not contain any material particulars. She filed reply denying the charges. However after conducting farce of an enquiry in complete violation of the principles of natural justice, an order of dismissal from service was passed on 21.06.1999. Against that order she preferred an appeal under the provisions of the Education Act. The management took a defence therein that the Appeal was not maintainable. On 07.11.2003, the appeal came to be dismissed as not maintainable. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed O.S. No.7/2004 seeking for the relief of declaration that the order of dismissal dated 21.06.1999 passed by the respondent/defendant as illegal and void ab-initio.
5. In response to the notice, the defendant No.1 Management chose to adopt the written statement filed by the defendant No.2. The defendant No.2, filed its written statement denying all the plaint averments. It was contended that the plaintiff failed to carry out her work to their satisfaction. She was irregular to school, failed to carry out the work entrusted and there were complaints of misbehavior against her. Hence she was issued with articles of charge. She was afforded sufficient time and opportunity and after holding an inquiry, order dated 21.06.1999, dismissing her from service was passed. It was also specifically contended that as the suit is filed seeking for declaration in respect of the order dated 21.06.1999, the suit was barred by limitation. It was also contended that a contract of personal service is not enforceable, hence the suit is not maintainable. The defendant also contended that the relief sought by the plaintiff is only for declaration. And since the plaintiff has not asked any appropriate reliefs, the suit is not maintainable etc.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues:
1) Whether, the plaintiff proves that, the dismissal order dated 21.06.1999 passed by the respondent defendant as illegal and alright abinitio?
2) Whether, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought?
3) Whether, the defendant proves that, the suit is not maintainable in law or on facts?
4) Whether, the plaintiff proves that, the Hon'ble Court has got jurisdiction to try the suit?
5) What order or decree?
Issue Nos.3 and 4 were treated as preliminary issues. The Trial Court answered issue No.3 in the affirmative and issue No.4 in the negative and dismissed the suit as being barred by limitation and also on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed R.A.No.68/2006 before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Sedam. After hearing and on going through the materials on reco
