INDIAN AIRLINES CORPORATION versus SUKHDEO RAI

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 510 · Decided: 27-04-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~10 
B 
INDIAN AIRLINES CORPORATION 
v. 
SUKHDEO RAI 
April 27, 1971 
[J. M. SHELAT, 1'. D. DUA AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.] 
Air Corporation Act, 1953-Sections 44, 
45-Regulation 
framed 
under the Act providing terms and conditlom of service of employees-
Termination of service in breach of regulations-Relationship 
between 
Corporation and its employee~ that of master and servant-Therefore, 
only entitled to damages. 
·C 
Regulations-Framed under Air Corporation Act, 1953-Stalu.J of. 
D 
.£ 
p 
·G 
H 
Master and &;vant-Employees of statutory corporation-Regula-
tions framed under statute only embody terms and conditiom of service. 
The appellant is a Corporation set up under the Air Corporation 
Act, 1953. 
The Act authorises the corporation to appoint officers and 
other employees and make regulations providina the terms and conditions 
of service of such officers and employees. 
The respondent employed as a motor driver was dismissed 
from 
the service of the Corporation in breach of the procedural safeguards 
provided under the regulations. He filed a suit for a declaration that 
the dismissal was illegal and void, The trial court granted the declara-
tion. 
On appeal the High Court affirmed the decree holding that the 
Corporation was under a statutory obligation to observe the procedure 
laid down in the regulations and that not having been done the order 
of dismissal was illegal and void and the respondent continued to be in the 
employment of the Corporation as if there was no termination of service. 
On the question whether the declaration siven by the trial court and 
upheld by the High Court could be granted, 
HELD: (1) When there is a purported termination of a contract of 
service, a declaration that the contract of service stili subsisted would 
not be made in the absence of special circumstances, because of the prin-
ciple that courts do not ordinarily grant specific performance of service. 
This is so, even in cases where the authority appointing an employee 
was acting in exercise of statutory authority. The relationship between 
the person appointed and the employer would, in such cases, be contra· 
ctual i.e., as between a master and servant, and the termination of that 
relationship would not entitle the servant to a declaration that his employ-
ment had not been validly determined. [512H] 
Francis v. Municipal Councillors of Kuala Lumpur, [1962] 3 All E.R. 
633, Barber v. Manchester Regional Hospital Board, [1958] 1 All E.R. 322 
and Ridge v. Baldwin, [1964] A.C. 40, referred to. 
But the court would grant a declaration of nullity where the action 
complained of is ultra vires or where the appointment is to an office or 
status. [513E-F] 
Vine v. National Dock Labour Board, [1957] A.C. 488, Boot Chand 
v. The Chancellor, [1968] 1 S.C.R. 434 and Vidyodaya University v. Silva, 
[19641 3 All E.R. 865, referred to. 
t.A.c. v. SUKHDEO RAI (She/at, J.) 
511 
{ii) The fact that the appellant Corporation was one set up under and 
A 
was regulated by a statute would not take away, without anything more; 
the relationship between the Corporation and its employees from the cate-
gory of purely master and servant relationship. [514E] 
Vidyodaya University v. Silva, [1964] All E.R. 865 and Dr. S. B. Dutt 
v. University of Delhi, [19.59] S.C.R. 1236, referred to, 
(iii) The employment of the respondent is not one to an office or 
B 
-status and neither the Act nor the rules made under s. 44 by the Central 
Government lay down any obligation or restriction as to the power of the 
•Corporation to terminate the employment of its employees or any proce-
tdural safeguards subject to which only such power could be exercised. 
,[516E] 
(iv) This Court has held that there are only three well-recognised 
exceptions to the general rule under the law of master and servant where 
C 
a declaration would be issued, viz .• (i) cases of public servants falling under 
article 311(2) of the Constitution; (ii) cases falling under the industrial law 
and (iii) cases where acts of statutory bodies are in breach of a mandatory 
obligation impos~d by a statute. 
[517B] 
S. R, Tewari v. District Board, Agra, (1964] 3 S.C.R. 55, Bank of 
Baroda v. Mehrotra, [1970] 2 L.L.J. 54, Ram Babu Rathaur v. Life ln~u-
rance Corporation. A.I.R. 1961 All. 50:!, Life Insurance Corporation v, 
D 
N. Banerjee, [1971] 1 L.L.J. 1, Dr. Gupta v. Nathu, [1963] 1 S.C.R, 721, 
Kruse v. Johnson, [1898] 2 Q.B.D. 91 and Rajasthan State Electricity Board 
v. Mohan 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.