A claim for damages from wrongful termination is maintainable even if a contract of personal service cannot be enforced, affirming that such claims cannot be dismissed under procedural rules.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

CM APPL. 21346/2022 (for exemption)

1. Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CM(M) 417/2022

3. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails an order dated 12th October, 2021, passed by the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ"), in CS DJ No. 75/2019 (Anita Kumar v. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre), on an objection of maintainability raised by the petitioner, as the defendant in the said suit. The impugned order rejects the said objection and holds the suit to be maintainable.

4. The respondent, in her suit, sought a declaration that the termination of her employment by the petitioner on 7th April, 2011 was illegal and also claimed damages/compensation to the extent of Rs.18,61,000/-, with interest from 7th April, 2011. Additionally, the plaint sought restoration of the respondent in the employment of the petitioner.

5. The petitioner contested the maintainability of the aforesaid suit on the ground that a contract of personal service with a private employer was not capable of specific performance in view of the proscription contained in Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

6. The learned ADJ has, in the impugned order, largely agreed with this submission of the petitioner citing, for the said purpose, the judgment of the Supreme Court in SBI v. SN Goel, AIR 2008 SC 2594 and the judgment of this Court in Ranmeet Singh Chahel v. Oracle India Pvt. Ltd., MANU/DE/4941/2018.

7. Even so, it was observed by the learned ADJ, in its judgment in Ranmeet Singh Chahel, MANU/DE/4941/2018, this Court had held that an employee, whose services were allegedly wrongfully terminated by a private employer could maintain a claim for damages and that a suit containing such a claim cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.

8. The learned ADJ further relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd., (2018)11 SCC 780, to hold that, if part of the relief sought in a plaint was maintainable, the plaint could not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11.

9. Thereafter, in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order, the learned ADJ observes thus:

"As per the appointment letter dt. 03.01.1991, the plaintiff was offered the post of Executive Assistant subject to her agreeing to the terms and conditions mentioned in the said letter. The plaintiff has accepted the terms and conditions on 05.01.1991. Condition 9 of the said letter provides that "You are liable to be suspended from services pending enquiry into any charge of misconduct against you till the final decision in the matter is taken." However, as per letter dt. 07.04.2011 issued to the plaintiff whereby she was informed that she has been released from services of defendant from 07.04.20211 with one month advance salary towards notice period. However, the said letter does not mention anything with respect to any enquiry being conducted against the plaintiff or whether pending such enquiry she was suspended from the services."

10. Clearly, no exception can be taken to the finding of the learned ADJ that, even if the respondent's contract with the petitioner was incapable of specific performance, the respondent was nonetheless entitled to sue for damages and that, in view thereof, the plaint could not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11.

11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, expresses some misgivings because of the afore-extracted penultimate paragraph of the impugned order. He submits that this paragraph is likely to be interpreted, later in the proceedings before the learned ADJ, as amounting to an acknowledgment that