LexK.T.CHANDY versus MANSA RAM ZADE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.... :.--
6SO
K.T.CHANDY
v.
MANSA RAM ZADE
Dect!mber 11. 1973
[S. N. DWIVEDI AND Y. V. CHANDRACHUD. JJ.)
Contempt of C~!lrt-S!lit by employee arainst emp!oyer-Dismissa/ of employee
;n exercise of rirht to termin~te as per contract of serv1ce-When does not amount
to contempt.
B
· Th~ re1p~nden~ 'II' as ernploy~d in~ company, · Tbe contract of service Provided
f3 t th~ t:r.niution of s:rvic~ by giving three rnJnths notice or three months pay
'.
i:lli:a th.:r:~r witlnut\uig1ing any cause. The comp1ny gave him a notice that
it w11 ro:~nd that his p:rfornnnce and conduct have not been good and that he had
nlt P~""d useful to the c:>m;nny. lie was therefore advised to trY for alternative
C
e'll;>l:>y.n:nL H• wu inf:mn:d tlu.t he would be released from the company at
his r:p:n on p1ym:nt by bim of the am'>unt under a bond executed by him with
S()'!B -:n=~"ion. Tile respl'11 :nt tll,reupon filed a suit claiming various reliefs,.
H: di:l not ,,k: for an interim injunction restraining the appellant and the company
fr.,m t:rmilating hil service during the p:ndencY of the suit, nor did the appellant
ao:i thl e> unny give :u~y such ulldortalcing. The company gave the respondent
DJtio• tor ui Hting nis servic• with elfect from the date or the service of the notice
and graDted him three months' pay.
D
Tin High Court h:ld that the act of giving the second notice amounted to eoo-
tem" of c:>urt b!Cause, as a result of lhe termination some of the relie~ prayed for
wlald 'l=m: jnfructuous and that would amount to obstruction or Interference
with due course ofjustice . .
Allowilla lhe appeal to this Court,
H!!LO : Wh:re a plrty to a suit terminates the service of the adversary party
in lh~ h71<Jt uuciu of 11/J rl~hu u~:fer the eo!flract of urv/ce and In tile ahunce
of ~1' I"''''"' ''/111ct1on or u~1<r14kln~. tho act would not corutitute contempt of
CoUrL (6S3 B-C)
E
(a I A c>-n')inod roldin! of the tw;, notices ~hows that the appellant had term!·
~
nl:d t'l~ "r•ic' ill th~ h >1!'1 ,c,.~ise or the right ve<~ed jn tho company by the
01~,,,~ -.r HNic~. T.,, )•1!< did not threaten the reJp<lDdent to withdraw the
F
wbole or P!llt of the suit. {653 Cj
{b) T :t~ ~i•c!-nltt!lo; t~nt o1: or mJre of the reliefs cl3im:d tn the plaint had
b;:>:n) lnfructuous o!\ ac~unt of the termiMtjon would not e-;tnbli.•h contum•cY,
b::u;,. ·~• 'llP>~:i>!ll Wll fr¢: 10 am:od hiJ pl>int and ask: for an appropriate
relict (6S3 D)
. (c) Th: fac·t that tb~ ap;.,lllnt h•d tender~<! an unconditional apology in the
f{. ~'t C lUrt il DOl & &r;>u-1d r·1r thil Court refU•inll tO jnterferc, becau•e, (iJ the
lf.J l Cu·t hvl ill f•ot h:li 1~11 ~P!l:ll1nt hat com'!liu~d contempt thougl! II dtd
n 11 , .,. 1 ·1 ')'J11Sil 'tl:'lt br.\u" ·,r th: lD li'>IY. and (iil the H111h Courl bad d1rcctcd
th: ap,,:ll<>OI to par colts to the re1pondent. !6S4 Dj
G
T~h QJ>fl G>l~' Y. R. N. '>~ •,k/a ( !96~1 ) S C R. 422 !ani{ Dalwduf Singh
v. DJI} "'"~ fe•Mr/, [1?6')] I S.C.R. d4 and Mal;jir'ao Shliole v. C.(}, ltf•llkar,
Jl
A.I.R. I 'Hl M • .ll, 24S, rcfcrcd to.
.#;
-· _;_...--~~----
IC. T. CHANDY V."M. R. ZADE (Dwivedi, /.)
651
A
CRIMiNAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 129
B
c
D
.E
F_
G
R.
of 1970.
Appeal by Special leave from t~e Judgment and order dated the
24th July, 1969 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Misc. Case
No. 179 of 1969.
D. Mukherjee, and D.N. Mukherjee,for the appellant. S.B. Wad,
for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DWIVBDI, J.
Seemingly it is a small case. It has not hit the
headlines in the news-media. Nor it has gripped the public_ mind.
The pecuniary stake is trivial. A tiny sum of Rs. 200/- is payable as
costs by the appellant. However, this case brings in to the flash-point
an issue of great consequence to liberty of contract: Where to draw
the divid,ing line between the area of contempt of court and the area
of operation of contract~! rights •
. 'The appellant is the Chairman of the Hindustan Steel · Limited
(hereinafter referred to as the Company). The respondent was employed
in the Company on a contract of service. The contract provided for
termination of his service by giving three months' riotice or three months'
pay in lieu thereof and without assigning any cause. On February 21,
1968, the' Company gave him this notice :
"It is fo11nd that your
performance and conduct in this plant have not been good and that
you have not proved useExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.