Court No. - 34
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 513 of 2019
Appellant :- Vipin Kumar Chaturvedi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Vikas Tiwari,Raj Kumar Kesari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Madan Mohan,Parmeshwar Yadav
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Yadav, Advocate, for appellant and Sri Parmeshwar Yadav, Advocate, for respondents.
2. Appointment letter of petitioner on page 79 of Paper book clearly shows that it was issued by Jupiter Administrative and Security Services Private Limited clearly mentioning that it is an appointment on a fixed honorarium and shall come to an end on expiry of contract. Relevant terms and conditions reads as under:
“1. You will be paid a fixed honorarium of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month.
2. TDS or any other statutory dues as applicable will be deducted from you salary.
3. This is an honorary post and you will work sincerely & with dedication.
4. This appointment is in accordance to the G.O. No. 2511/12.03.2009-7/09 and G.O.No. 1725/12.02.2010-147/2007 and shall come to an end on expiry of the contract.
5. Your services are purely temporary in nature and can be terminated at any time by the company. You may also leave the services by giving 5 working days notice and after handling over charge.
6. It should be well understood that we are a service providing agency and our personnel are required to work at our clients' premises as per the job requirements. Thus your services may be placed with any of our clients, anywhere in India, where we have our operation at short notice.
7. Your services are liable to be transferred to any of the company's establishment, offices, Associates within the country or abroad. You shall not be entitled to any extra benefit or compensation because of your transfer.
8. For all intent and purposes, irrespective of place of you posting you shall be associate of Jupiter Administrative and Security Services being controlled managed and supervised by its management.
9. In following cases your services is liable to be terminated instantaneously;-
(a) If any information furnished by you to seek this post is found incorrect
(b) If you divulge secret of the company or its clients to its competitors of any other person.
(c) If you submit false bill & claim.
(d) If the management looses confidence in you.
10. You shall abide by the services rules of the Company and maintain discipline. Any indiscipline or violation of services rules on your part shall amount to misconduct and shall attract disciplinary action.
11. In case of change of your residential address you shall inform the company immediately in writing. If you fail to do so, the last address available in the company record shall be treated as correct and all communication sent on this address shall be deemed to have been properly served.”
3. In view thereof, learned Single Jude has rightly relied on Division Bench judgment in Rajesh Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India and others 2019 (2) ADJ 830 wherein it was held:
“It is not in dispute that terms and conditions are not governed by any Statute or statutory provision or by any provision made under any authority of Statute In these circumstances, in the cases like petitioner, consistently it has been laid down that employment is simply a part of contract. If employment is terminated or contract of service is terminated, Court shall not grant relief of reinstatement, i.e. specific performance of contract of personal service, as it is barred by the provisions of Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1963") and, therefore, no remedy under Article 226 shall be available since employee, if complains about wrongful termination of service, then must avail remedy in common law by claiming damages.”
(emphasis added)
4. The Division Bench in taking the above view in Rajesh Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India and others (supra) has relied on recent judgment of Apex Court in Kailash Singh Vs. The Managing Committee, Mayo College, Ajmer and others (2018) 10 SCALE 638, where dispute related to termination of an employee of Mayo College. Court held that employment was governed by simple contract of employment and, hence, no relief of reinstatement can be granted, but employee, if wrongfully terminated, may claim damages.
5. We, therefore, do not find any fault with the judgment of learned Single Judge so as to warrant interference in this appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
6. Dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 PS