Point of Law : Reliefs of reinstatement and backwages could not be sought in a civil proceedings, applies in the context of a case where the provisions of the ID Act were applicable.

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present revision petition challenges the impugned order dated 9th August 2018 in CS No. 142/2018 titled Avtar Krishan Bhat v. The Jammu & Kashmir Bank ltd. passed by the ld. ADJ-02 (North-West) Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter “Trial Court”). Vide the said order, the application moved by the Petitioner/Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant Bank”) under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed by the Trial Court. Thereafter, the suit has proceeded, issues have been framed in the matter and the Trial Court has proceeded with the recording of evidence.

3. The background of the case is that the Respondent/Plaintiff- Mr. Avtar Krishan Bhat (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) was employed as a Probationary Officer with the Defendant Bank in the year 1989 and he was thereafter, promoted from time to time. Finally, he was posted as Branch Manager in Ghaziabad branch in June 2013. It is the case of the Plaintiff that he was fulfilling his duties honestly and diligently. However, vide the suspension order bearing no. CHQ/DD/2014-224 dated 17th November 2014 the Plaintiff was placed under suspension. Later, he was terminated vide termination letter dated 12th February 2015. According to the Defendant Bank, the termination was issued on the basis of Rule 262 of the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited Officers Service Rules, 2000 (hereinafter “Rules”).

4. The case of the Plaintiff is that he had worked with diligence and honesty for a period of 26 years with the Defendant Bank. He has given various reasons to argue that the termination done by the Defendant Bank was mala fide. As per the plaint, the Plaintiff claims that even if the termination was under Rule 262 of the Rules, he was entitled to get retirement benefits on the basis of service rendered by him. The Plaintiff is stated to have made repeated representations to the Defendant Bank to review the termination order which did not bear any fruit. Accordingly, he filed the present suit seeking declaration and various other monetary reliefs.

5. The stand taken by the Defendant Bank before the Trial Court was that the suit itself was not maintainable. According to the Defendant Bank, the Plaintiff’s suit was nothing but enforcement of contract of personal service, which was not specifically enforceable in view of section 14(1)(b) and 41 of the Specific Relief Act,1963 (hereinafter “SRA”). The Defendant Bank, accordingly, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC before the Trial Court seeking rejection of the plaint. Vide a short order, the Trial Court dismissed the said application in the following terms-

“Application filed on behalf of the defendant u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC stating therein that the suit is not maintainable because it is related to the contract of personal services.

The application is flimsy. The suit would have been barred had it been for the enforcement of the contract of service contract but the suit is on the contrary based upon the breach of the service contract. The plaintiff is seeking that his termination was illegal and hence he is seeking recovery of salary and other service benefits. The application is without force and I am dismissing the same without seeking its reply.”

6. Mr. Saxena, ld. Counsel appearing for the Defendant Bank, submits that the suit is for enforcement of a contract of service. The Plaintiff was guilty of discounting more than 200 fake and fictitious Letters of Credit (LCs) leading to loss of more than Rs.32 crores to the Defendant Bank. Accordingly, the Bank had to take extreme steps of terminating him from service. He submits that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jitendra Nath Biswas v. Empire of India and Ceylon Tea Co. and Ors., 1989 3 SCC 582, the only remedy for the Plaintiff can be a suit for damages and he cannot file a suit for specific