The judgment established the limitations on granting a declaration without seeking further reliefs under section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, particularly in cases involving contracts for personal services.

JUDGMENT - S.A. BOBDE, J.:---This second appeal is preferred by the appellant who seeks a declaration that his termination order is illegal and not binding on the plaintiff and a further declaration that he continues in service of the respondent company. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court have both dismissed the appellant's suit. This second appeal has been admitted by this Court on the question of applicability of the decision in A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1571 (Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and another v. Borjo Nath Ganguly and another)1, and the decision of the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 855 Sirsi Municipality by its President ,Sirsi v. Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis)2. However, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant the substantial question of law that needs to be decided in this case is:

Whether the declaration sought for in prayer Clause (1) can be granted by the Civil Court under section 34 of the Specific Relief Act?

This substantial question of law has been therefore framed with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respondent and in fact arguments have principally been addressed to this question.

2. The undisputed facts are that the appellant was employed under a contract dated 15-5-1964, Exh. 41, with the respondent company as a permanent member of the staff. He was employed as Senior Supervisor. Thereafter the appellants services were terminated on 17-8-1981 by the company on the ground that his services are no longer required. It is common ground that the services were not terminated on account of any misconduct but constitute a discharge simpliciter.

3. The appellant, therefore, filed the present suit in which he prayed for the following reliefs.

i) The Termination Order of the defendant company dated 17th August, 1981 be declared to be illegal, void ab initio and not binding on the plaintiff, and further that the plaintiff continues in the services of the defendant Company.

No further relief of reinstatement and consequential benefits was sought in the suit.

4. The trial Court after recording evidence dismissed the appellant's suit and recorded the finding that the termination of the appellant's services was not illegal. It has also recorded a finding that the Executive Director of the company had authority to terminate the services of the appellant and the appellant is not entitle to continue the services of the respondent company.

5. The appellant carried an appeal to the Court of the 6th Additional District Judge, Pune. The learned Additional District Judge concurred with the trial Court on all the issues and dismissed the appeal. The learned Appellate Court has rendered a categorical finding that the Executive Director of the respondent company one S.B. Desai was authorised by the power of the Directors to terminate the services of the appellant therefore the termination order is not illegal on that count. The learned Appellate Court has further rendered a finding that the appellant was employed in a managerial post and he was not governed by any labour laws and the termination in question was a simple discharge. There was no contractual or statutory obligation on the respondent to hold a Departmental Enquiry before termination. The learned Appellate Court has further found that the appellant has been paid 3 months' salary by letter dated 30-8-1981. The learned Appellate Court therefore dismissed the suit.

6. Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that termination order is void and illegal on the ground that it suffers from non compliance of principle of natural justice and not in accordance with the mode of termination provided for in contract.

Clause 13 of the Service Agreement reads thus:

"Clause 13. The company has the right to terminate this agreement any time before the term of five (5) years by giving three (3) months' notice on the happening of any of the following event:

a) If the present business of the company is suspended for reasons bey

Click Here to Read the rest of this document