Suit For Damages For Wrongful Dismissal Not Maintainable Until Termination Is Challenged And Declared Wrongful: J&K High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that a suit for damages due to wrongful dismissal is not maintainable unless the termination is first challenged and declared wrongful. The court observed that the plaintiff has neither pleaded nor made any attempt to demonstrate that the impugned order of dismissal was in violation of any terms of his employment.

A bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul held that the plaintiff had not sought declaratory relief for decreeing the termination of his services as bad in law. In the absence of such a prayer, the trial court had traveled beyond its realm by declaring the termination bad in law and further allowing entitlement for reinstatement, which was not prayed for in the first instance.

The court dismissed the appeal, stating that the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent was not maintainable under law. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court were accordingly set aside.

The court relied on Maharashtra State Coop. Housing Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. Prabhakar Sitaram Bhadange, (2017) 5 SCC 623, wherein the court held that a contract of personal services is not enforceable under common law and that a civil court does not have the jurisdiction to grant relief of reinstatement, as granting such relief would amount to enforcing a contract of personal services.

The court held that the only remedy available was to file a suit in the civil court seeking a declaration that the termination was wrongful and to claim damages for such wrongful termination of services.

The court also noted that the instant case involved private employment, which is governed by a contract between the parties. However, the court observed that there was no such contract on record by virtue of which said dispute could be resolved.

The court further underlined that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that conducting an inquiry or filing a charge sheet was a prerequisite before the termination of his services. It also stated that the termination could not be termed as bad, and the same was also not challenged in the suit.

BACKGROUND:

The respondent was working in Punjab National Bank as a Manager. In 1975, he submitted his resignation to join Hindustan Commercial Bank. The bank did not accept his resignation, citing pending unauthorized advances under his management, and later dismissed him. He filed a suit before the Additional District Judge, Jammu, seeking damages for wrongful dismissal. The trial court ruled in his favor, declaring the dismissal illegal and awarding Rs. 12 lakh in damages. Punjab National Bank appealed against this decision.

The court, with respect to the issue of requirement of enquiry before the termination, held that a contract of private employment is not the same as public employment and, as such, the principles of administrative law do not apply in cases of private employment.

The court further held that no fixed tenure was assured to the petitioner by virtue of the contract with the defendant bank. It added that the plaintiff had also not filed the appointment letter and, accordingly, in terms of the admitted facts, the services of the employee could have been terminated by giving one month's notice.

APPEARANCE:

Dheeraj Sharma, Advocate for Petitioners

V R Wazir, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Rajat Sudan, Advocate For Respondents

Case-title Punjab National Bank vs V K Gandotra,

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 80

Click Here To Read/Download Order