NANDGANJ SIHORI SUGAR CO. LTD., RAE BARELI versus BADRI NATH DIXIT AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] 2 S.C.R. 468 · Decided: 24-04-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
NANDGANJ SIHORI SUGAR CO. LTD., RAE BARELI 
AND ANR. 
v. 
BADRI NATH DIXIT AND ORS. 
APRIL 24, 1991 
[K. JAGANNATHA SHE1TY, TKOCHU THOMMEN AND 
YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.J 
Specific Relief Act, 1963: Sections 14 and 41-Contract for 
employment-Whether enforceable against employer-Damages-
Whether a remedy for breach of personal contract. 
The first respondent institnted a snit for mandatory injunction to 
enforce a contract alleged to have been entered into between him and 
the appellants, officers of the second respondent Corporation, for 
appointment to the post of Instrumentation Foreman in the appellants' 
company, and for consequential reliefs. He contended that he had been 
sponsored by the Chairman and Managing Director of the second 
respondent Corporation, which was the holding company of the appel-
lants' company by his two letters for appointment as an Apprentice 
Engineer in terms of a scheme formulated by the Government of India. 
The appellants and the second respondent denied the existence of any 
contract. 
The trial court dismissed the suit. However, on appeal, the first 
appellate court decreed the suit and directed the first appellant to 
appoint the first respondent to the post of Apprentice Engineer under 
the scheme sponsored by the Government of India. This was confirmed, 
in appeal, by the High Court, which held the first respondent was 
entitled to be appointed to the post of Instrumentation Foreman with 
effect from the date on which the former incumbent of that post had 
resigned. 
In the appeal before this Court, on behalf of the appellants it was 
contended that there was no evidence of the contract having been 
entered into by the appellants with the first respondent; nor was there 
any evidence of a scheme of the Government of India, which entitled 
him to be appointed to any post in the appellants' company, and that, in 
any view, he was not qualified for appointment as an Apprentice, much 
less to the higher post oflnstrumentation Foreman. 
468 
• 
• 
_,, 
SUGAR CO. v. B.N. DJXJT 
469 
On behalf of the first respondent it was contended that the letters 
addressed by the second respondent in his capacity as Chairman, and 
Managing Director of the holding campany, to the appellants, the offi-
cers of the subsidiary company, made it obligatory on the part of the 
latter to appoint him in terms of the Government of India scheme, as so 
found by both the first Appellate Court and the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1 A contract of employment cannot ordinarily be 
enforced by or against an employer. The remedy is to sue for damages. 
The grant of specific performance is purely discretionary and must be 
refused when not warranted by the ends of justice. Snch relief can be 
granted only on sound legal principles. In the absence of any statutory 
requirement, courts do not ordinarily force an employer to recruit or 
retain in service 11:n employee not required by the employer. There are, 
of course, certain excepti'!ns to this role, such as in the case of a public 
servant dismissed from service in contravention of Article 311 of the 
Constitution; reinstatement of a dismissed worker under the Industrial 
Law; a statutory body acting in breach of statutory obligations, and the 
like. f475D-E] 
B.N. Tiwari v. District Board, Agra, AIR 1964 SC 1680; U.P. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
State Warehousing Corporation v. C.K. Tyagi, [1970] 2 SCR 250 and 
E 
Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli and Ors. v. 
Lakshmi Narain and Ors., [ 1976] 2 SCR 1006, referred to. 
.,_, 
Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts, by Pollock & Molla, 
Tenth Edn., page 983 and Halsbury's Laws of England. Fourth Edn., 
Volume 44, paragraphs 405 to 420, referred to. 
F 
1.2 In the instant case, neither from the plaint nor from the evi-
dence is it possible to identify any concluded contract to which the first 
respondent is a party or which he can enforce. There is no specific plea 
or evidence as regards the particulars of the scheme of the Government 
of India in terms of which he seeks relief whether it is a statutory 
G 
scheme, and if so, what are the provisions relied on by him and whether 
a duty is cast on the appellants and a benefit is conferred on persons like 
the first respondent. Assuming that such a scheme existed or any such 
contract bound the parties, it would be violative of all basic norms of 
law to decree a suit for specific performance of a contract of personal

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