IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 255 OF 2012 (DEC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI VIRUPAXAPPA S/O AYYANAGOUDAMARKUMBI (V.A. MARKUMBI)

AGE: 54 YEARS OCC:WAS WORKING IN M.C.F. LTD AS MARKETING OFFICER AT AREA OFFICE HYDERABAD UNDER T.NO. 1596, R/O SIDDAPURA TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE CHAIRMAN Digitally signed MANGALORE CHEMICALS FERTILIZERS LTD by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH 10/2, KASTURABA ROAD COURT OF P.B.NO.5059, BANGALORE-560 001.

KARNATAKA

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR MANGALORE CHEMICALS FERTILIZERS LTD

10/2, KASTURABA ROAD P.B. NO.5059, BANGALORE-560 001.

3. THE VICE PRESIDENT (P & A)

MANGALORE CHEMICALS FERTILIZERS LTD

10/2, KASTURABA ROAD P.B. NO.5059, BANGALORE-560 001.

4. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER (SHRI. C.M. NATARAJ)

MANGALORE CHEMICALS FERTILIZERS LTD AREA OFFICE NO. 1-4-789/78

1^ST FLOOR, GANDHI NAGAR, (NEAR PARK- II)

HYDERABAD-500 080.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;

V/O DATED 09.01.2019 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT BY WAY OF PAPER PUBLICATION)

THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.10.2011 PASSED IN O.S.8213/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR THE DECLARATION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff assailing the dismissal of suit instituted in O.S.No.8213/2001.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. Facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiff asserts that he was appointed as a Sales Representative in Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., and that he discharged his duties with utmost diligence, integrity and efficiency, maintaining an unblemished service record. According to him, he was initially appointed as a Marketing Officer Trainee by order dated 11.04.1986, which appointment was subsequently confirmed, and he was later transferred to Kurnool District in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is his specific case that on 08.07.1998 he was served with a charge sheet containing, according to him, baseless and reckless allegations, and was placed under suspension pending enquiry. The plaintiff contends that though he submitted his reply dated 10.08.1998 to the Enquiry Officer, no proper enquiry was conducted. He alleges that the Enquiry Officer, without affording him reasonable opportunity and without conducting a full-fledged enquiry, submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. It is further alleged that the Disciplinary Authority (defendant No.2), without furnishing a copy of the enquiry report and without supplying relevant documents or granting an opportunity of hearing, imposed the penalty of dismissal from service by order dated 15.09.1998, effective from 18.09.1998. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff before the Appellate Authority/defendant No.1 came to be dismissed as time- barred. In that backdrop, the plaintiff claims that a cause of action arose to institute the present suit seeking declaration that the order of dismissal and the appellate order are null and void, together with a consequential relief of reinstatement.

4. Upon service of summons, defendant Nos.1 to 3 entered appearance and filed a common written statement. The defendants specifically contended that the plaintiff was an employee in a private company and that the relationship between the parties was purely that of master and servant governed by a contract of personal service. It was their categorical stand that such a contract cannot be specifically enforced in a civil court and that reinstatement in service cannot be granted in respect of private employment. On these premises, the defendants sou