Contracts for personal service cannot be specifically enforced except under limited circumstances; remedies reside in damages for wrongful termination.

JUDGMENT :

K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.

The present appeal is preferred by the plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2023 in O.S. No.4556/2021 on the file of the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-25) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short). By the judgment and decree, the Trial Court dismissed the suit.

2. Suit was instituted seeking a declaration that the termination letter dated 10.08.2021 is null and void. Further, seeking relief of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his work and stopping or canceling his medical insurance and other benefits. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff was appointed as a Principal Associate-IT in defendant No.1-company vide appointment letter dated 27.06.2018 (Ex.P.1) and was subsequently promoted to Senior Infrastructure Lead-IT (Ex.P.2). According to the plaintiff, he discharged his duties diligently and was entrusted with additional responsibilities of desktop administration. It is his case that owing to certain complaints made against defendant No.2, a Senior Manager, he was coerced to resign, upon refusal, the defendant issued a termination letter dated 10.08.2021 without assigning valid reasons or following due process, including the issuance of a show-cause notice.

-

3. The defendant-company remained ex-parte. The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and marked documents at Exs.P.1 to P.12. Ex.P.9 is the order of termination.

-

4. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff’s pleadings alleging absence of reasons are contrary to the recitals in Ex. P.9. The Trial Court found that the ground for termination was indicated in Ex. P.9 as ‘rude behavior in several instances with his peers and line of management’. The Trial Court found that the plaintiff suppressed material facts and approached the Court with unclean hands and dismissed the suit.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff, particularly Exs.P.1 to P.12, which established the nature of employment, promotion and abrupt termination without due process. It is argued that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the termination letter dated 10.08.2021 (Ex. P.9) did not assign any valid or specific reasons for termination and was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. Further, the plaintiff was not issued with a show-cause notice, nor given an opportunity of being heard before termination, thereby rendering the action arbitrary, unfair and opposed to fair labour practices. It is contended that the defendant- company, having remained ex parte, did not rebut the plaintiff's evidence, and therefore the Trial Court ought to have decreed the suit based on the uncontroverted testimony of PW.1. It is contended that no material was placed by the defendants to substantiate any allegation against the plaintiff and thus, the Trial Court has erred in holding that the plaintiff has approached the Court with unclean hands.

-

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-company, apart from supporting the judgment of the Trial Court on merits, has raised a preliminary objection to the very maintainability of the suit on account of defective service of summons at the trial stage. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Neerja Realtors Private Li