* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA No. 122/2015 % 23rd August, 2018 M/S G4S SECURITY SERVICES (I) PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Deepak Sabharwal and Ms.

Ritika Seth, Advocates (Mobile No. 9810127048).

versus DHIRAJ NEGI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Samir Sagar Vasishta and Mr. Ashutosh Jha, Advocates (Mobile No. 9911588191).

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 4.12.2014 by which the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff/employee against the appellant/defendant/ employer and the trial court has directed reinstatement of the respondent/plaintiff/employee besides ordering the appellant/defendant/employer to pay salary from September, 2011 till August, 2012 including increments for the period.

2. I do not have to narrate the facts in detail because admittedly it is not disputed, and it could not have been disputed, that the employment of the respondent/plaintiff with the appellant/defendant is a private employment i.e. not an employment under a State/Government or an arm of the State/Government and which latter employment being a public employment which is only protected under the provisions of the Constitution.

3. Admittedly, the employment of the respondent/plaintiff with the appellant/defendant was in terms of the Employment Letter dated 18.5.1996 (Ex.PW1/2), and which contained Clause 4 providing for termination by giving two month’s notice. This Clause 4 reads as under:-

“4. That your appointment shall be subject to termination on either side by giving one month’s notice or payment of salary in lieu thereof in the first 6 months and 2 months thereafter. In the event of your resignation, the Management may accept the same with immediate effect notwithstanding the one month’s notice

period.”

4. Therefore, once the contract is a private employment, and the same is terminable by two month’s notice, the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.C. Shetty Vs. Bharat Nidhi Limited AIR 1958 SC 12 applies, and which provides that a contract of private employment ceases on the period of notice being served out or pay being given in lieu of the notice period. I have had an occasion to refer to the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.C. Shetty (supra) in various cases, and the last of such case is the judgment in the case of Mrs. Malini Rajendran Vs. Federation of Hotel &Restaurant Association of India & Others, 2017 (242) DLT 167. The relevant paragraph of the judgment in the case of Mrs. Malini Rajendran (supra) is paragraph 5, and the same reads as under:-

5.(i) Though the appellant/plaintiff pleads before this Court that the appellant/plaintiff had claimed the relief of restitution of services as also damages by alleging violation of Clause 11 of the appointment letter dated 3.10.2006, however, I have not found any cause of action specifically pleaded in the plaint by making reference to Clause 11 of the appointment letter dated 3.10.2006, that the appellant/plaintiff has not been given three months notice or that the appellant/plaintiff has not being given three months salary in lieu of notice terminating services.

(ii) For the sake of arguments and assuming that the appellant/plaintiff had pleaded a cause of action of illegal termination of services by not being given three months notice or three months salary in lieu thereof, however, the law is well settled in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Shetty Vs. Bharat Nidhi Ltd., AIR 1958 SC 12 and in which judgment the Supreme Court has held that even if there is illegal termination of contractual services of an employee, the maximum damages which an employee as a grievance of illegal termination of services is entitled to is the salar