Back
1991 Supreme(Pat) 427
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.B.Sinha, J.
Lilawati Devi
Versus
Central Coalfields Limited
Appeal from Original Decree No. 18 of 1981 ;
Decided On : OCTOBER 09, 1991
A suit for damages for wrongful termination of contract of service is maintainable in a civil court.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - CONTRACT OF SERVICE - WRONGFUL TERMINATION - DAMAGES - LIMITATION - AMENDMENT OF PLAINT - JURISDICTION - INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS) ACT, 1946 - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - A suit for damages for wrongful termination of contract of service is maintainable in a civil court. - The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 do not bar a suit for damages for wrongful termination of contract of service. - The jurisdiction of the civil court is barred only in respect of the remedies which are available under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and for which a complete machinery and procedure has been provided in the said Act. - A right to sue for damages for breach of contract is a common law right. - A contract of service as also embodying terms and conditions of services is also governed by and under the provisions of Indian Contract Act. - Thus in a case where the contract of an employee has illegally been repudiated by an employer the employee has a common law right to maintain a suit for damages, although his right to enforce a contract of personal service may be barred under Sec. 14(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. - The Civil Courts jurisdiction to try a suit to enforce a right of an employee to obtain an order of reinstatement in services emanates from the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act and/or from the provisions of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act 1948, but a right to sue for damages stands on a different footing. - Such a right, as noticed hereinbefore, being a common law right and not being in relation to enforcement of any right under the Industrial Disputes Act, the remedy lies only in the Civil Court. - In this view of the matter, it has to be held that the learned court below was not correct in holding that the remedy of Jaiswal was to take recourse to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act only. - There cannot, therefore, be any doubt whatsoever that although in view of Sec. 14(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 a contract of personal service which depends on the volition of the parties would not be enforceable in the Court of law which claim can only be adjudicated before the forums constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , a suit for damages for commission of breaches of contract of service on the part of the defendants/respondents would not be maintainable.
Fact of the Case:
Krishna Biharilal Jaiswal, an employee of N.C.D.C. Ltd., was dismissed from service on October 6, 1966, allegedly for occupying two quarters and sub-letting one of them. Jaiswal filed a suit in the Civil Court seeking a declaration that his dismissal was illegal and for damages. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that Jaiswal's remedy lay under the Industrial Disputes Act. Jaiswal appealed to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that a suit for damages for wrongful termination of contract of service is maintainable in a civil court. The court further held that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act do not bar such a suit. The court also held that the trial court erred in holding that Jaiswal's remedy lay under the Industrial Disputes Act. The court found that Jaiswal had been wrongfully dismissed from service and awarded him damages of Rs. 80,000.
Issues: 1. Whether a suit for damages for wrongful termination of contract of service is maintainable in a civil court. 2. Whether the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act bar such a suit. 3. Whether the trial court erred in holding that Jaiswal's remedy lay under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A suit for damages for wrongful termination of contract of service is maintainable in a civil court. 2. The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act do not bar such a suit. 3. The trial court erred in holding that Jaiswal's remedy lay under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for damages of Rs. 80,000.
S.B.Sinha, J.
1. This first appeal arises out of a judgment and decree dated June 7, 1979 passed by Sri Philip Topno, Additional Subordinate Judge, Giridih, in Title Suit No. 20/1 of 1976-79 whereby and whereunder the said teamed court dismissed the plaintiffs suit.
2. The aforementioned suit was filed by Krishna Biharilal Jaiswal, predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants and hereinafter referred to as Jaiswal, inter alia, for the following relief:-
(a) That it be adjudicated and declared that the order of defendants dated October 6, 1966 dismissing the plaintiff from service is tainted with malice and is illegal and improper and ultra vires and the plaintiff be declared to be continued in service even after October 6, 1966.
(b) In case the court finds that in spite of the declaration that the order dated October 6, 1966 dismissing the plaintiff from service is illegal, improper and ultra vires, but for legal difficulty the Court cannot pass orders that the plaintiffs service is continuing even after October 6, 1966, inspite of the said wrong order, or that the plaintiff be reinstated, then a decree for damages of Rs. 1,00,000 be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants.
(c) A decree for the costs of the suit be passed in favour of the plaintiff. (d) Any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff be found entitled in law and equity be given to the plaintiff.
3. Jaiswal was employed by N.C.D.C. Ltd., the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant company which owns a colliery commonly knows as Kathara Colliery situated within Bermo Police Station in the district of Giridih. Jaiswal was employed as a Mechanic Grade I in the year 1958. He was alloted a quarter bearing No. 112 by the respondent. The respondent allegedly lodged a false case against Sri Sadhu Sharan Jaiswal full brother of Jaiswal in the year 1962 and dismissed him from services. The said criminal case was instituted on an allegation that the aforementioned Sadhu Sharan Jaiswal committed a criminal trespass in the aforementioned quarter No. 112 which was in possession of Jaiswal.
4. In the aforementioned criminal case, as Jaiswal filed a letter of allotment in his favour by the defendant in respect of the said quarter and as he helped his brother in contesting the said case, the officers of Kathara Colliery became enraged as against him. A suit for eviction was brought against the Jaiswals brother from quarter No. 112 on absolutely false ground as he had been looking after the said suit also, the officers of the Department took into their heads to remove him also from service and began to forge and concoct cases against him in this direction.
5. Allegedly, in the meanwhile, the Jaiswal was allotted a better type of quarter bearing No. 18/1, but he found the same to be in a state of complete disrepair and, thus, having found the same to be not habitable, requested the defendant to get the same thoroughly repaired. As the repairing work was not done for a long time Jaiswal could not shift to his new quarter bearing No. 18/1, However, the defendants directed Jaiswal to the said quarters. The defendants cancelled the order of allotment in respect of the aforementioned quarter No. 18/1 and forced him to formally handover the said quarter on July 20, 1966.
6. A charge-sheet was issued as against the Jaiswal for allegedly occupying quarter No. MQ No. 112 and quarter No. 18/1 and was placed under suspension with effect from August 29, 1966.
7. Despite explanations having been offered by Jaiswal, an order directing realisation of penal rent from him was passed. According to the plaintiff, the Deputy Chief Mining Engineer of the defendant with sinister motive dismissed him from services by his letter dated September 27, 1966 and then went on putting illegal and uiidue pressure on him to vacate quarter No. MQ 112. It was alleged by the defendant that Jaiswal had illegally handed over quarter No. 111, to his brother Sadhu Sharan Jaiswal which
