M/S. PEARLITE LINERS PVT. LTD. versus MANORAMA SIRSI

Citation: [2004] 1 S.C.R. 266 · Decided: 06-01-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MIS. PEARLITE LINERS PVT. L ro. 
i'\ 
v. 
MANORAMA SIRS! 
JANUARY 6, 2004 
B 
[BRIJESH KUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
'r I 
Specific Relief Act, 1963-Section 14-Contract for personal service-
No wrillen contract-Employee challenging transfer order, seeking declaration 
c 
that she continued to be in service of employer and injunction restraining 
company ji'om holding enquiry-Trial Court and also lower appellate court 
holding suit not maintainable-However, High Court directing suit to be 
decided on merits-Enforcement of contract-Permissibility of-Held: 
Enforcement of such contract 1101 permissible under law-Employer cannot be 
forced to take such employee with whom relation having reached a point of 
D complete loss of.faith-Also it is not a case of public employment to auract 
Article 31 I of Constitution or case under Industrial Disputes Act nor the 
employer is a statutmy body for attracting enforcement of contract-Further, 
,. 
none o.f1he reli<::f sought in the plaint can be granted under law-Thus, High 
... 
Court erred in directing suit to be decided on merits--Suit which is bound to 
E 
be dismissed for want of jurisdiction of court, should not be allowed to continue 
and go for trial--// should be thrown at the threshold-Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908-0rder 7, Rule I J(d)-Constitution of India, 1950 Article 311-Jndustrial 
Disputes Act, I 947. 
Appellant company appointed respondent as a trainee accountant. 
F She was transferred from head office to sales office. She did not comply 
with the transfer order and remained unauthorisedly absent from work. 
Company issued chargesheet. Respondent filed suit challenging the 
,.:. 
transfer order and also seeking declaration that she continued to be in 
service of the company and injunction restraining the company from 
holdin·g enquiry against her. Trial Court held that court had no 
G jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it was not maintainable and rejected 
the plaint. Lower appellate court dismissed the appeal. However, High 
Court .holding that the company failed to prove that the suit was not 
maintainable, remanded it to trial court for being decided on merits. Hence 
.,..-. 
the present appeal. 
H 
266 
PEARLITE LINERS PVT. LTD. 1·. MANORAMA SIRS! 
267 
rt 
Appellant-company contended that the prayers in the suit seeking A 
_,.. 
I 
·. 
)I 
reinstatement of the respondent as an employee of the appellant company 
amounts to specific performance of a contract of personal service which 
is specifically barred under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. It is well settled principle of law that a contract of 
personal service cannot be specifically enforced and a court will not give 
a declaration that the contract subsists and the employee continues to be 
in service against the will and consent of the employer. This general rule 
B 
of law is subject to three well recognized exceptions-(i) where a public C 
servant is sought to be removed from service in contravention of the 
provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution; (ii) where a worker is sought 
to be reinstated on being dismissed under the Industrial Law; and (iii) 
where a statutory body acts in breach of violation of the mandatory 
provisions of the statute. 1270-E-G] 
Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Sham/i and Ors. v. 
Lakshmi Narain and Ors., 119761 2 SCC 58, referred to. 
1.2. The instant case is not a case of public employment so as to 
attract Article 311 of the Constitution of India; neither the case is under 
D 
the Industrial Disputes Act nor the appellant-company is a statutory body, E 
there is no statute governing service conditions, thus does not fall in any 
of the three exceptions. It is a case. of private employment which normally 
would be governed by the terms of the contract between the parties. Since 
there is no written contract between the parties, the dispute cannot be 
resolved with reference to any terms and conditions governing the 
relationship between the parties. Declaration that she continued to be in F 
~ 
service and an injunction against a transfer order and against holding a 
) 
departmental enquiry in a suit would amount to imposing an employee 
on an employer or to enforcement of a contract of personal service, which 
is not permissible under the law. An employer cannot be enforced to take 
an employee with whom relations have reached a point of complete loss G 
of faith between the two. 1270-H; 271-A-

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