R.S.A. No.2016 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- R.S.A. No.2016 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:- 7.12.2010 Smt. Kush Lata ... Appellant Versus M/s United Rice Land Ltd. ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Divay Sarup, Advocate, for the appellant. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) This second appeal by the appellant/plaintiff-Smt. Kush Lata, whose suit for mandatory injunction to the effect that order dated 20.6.1994 passed by the respondent/defendant terminating her service being illegal, arbitrary, against rules of natural justice and directing the defendant to take back her in service with all consequential benefits of pay and allowances etc., was dismissed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Karnal, vide judgment and decree dated 11.11.2006 and the first appeal preferred by her against that judgment and decree was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Karnal, vide judgment and decree dated 21.8.2008. The case of the plaintiff is that she joined the defendant- Management in April 1989 and was transferred to Karnal in the 1991. Her services were terminated vide letter dated 20.6.1994 on the pretext that the management decided to close down the Karnal branch office for want of utility. She raised industrial dispute under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act while challenging that order, but the same was dismissed as not maintainable vide award dated 10.11.1997. Then she filed Civil Writ R.S.A. No.2016 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Petition No. 8006 of 1998 challenging that award, but that was also dismissed vide judgment dated 17.8.1999. Then she preferred SLP before the Apex Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 13.3.2000 with the observation that though the proceedings were not maintainable before the Labour Court, yet for other legal remedy she may challenge that termination order. That letter/order dated 20.6.1994 is illegal, arbitrary and against rules of natural justice, inter alia, on the following grounds:- 1. Her services should have been adjusted at main branch of the defendant instead of terminating the same. Her juniors have been retained in service and she has been discriminated and as such there is violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 2. Her service record was unblemished and her work was always appreciated. Her reversion/retrenchment could have been only the basis of seniority. The principle of first come last go was not followed. The work for which she was employed still exists with the defendant. 3. No procedure was followed for terminating her services. The suit was contested by the defendant. It was pleaded in the written statement that the plaintiff was only performing miscellaneous duties and moreover branch office had to be closed because the building, in which the same was running had to be handed over to the owner on account of settlement effected in a civil litigation. As goodwill gesture, three months salary was sent to her through registered letter. She did not prefer any appeal or representation to the Board of Directors before knocking the doors R.S.A. No.2016 of 2009 (O&M) -3- of the Court. Her services were validly terminated as there was no post in the cadre to adjust her. It was also pleaded that the suit is not maintainable and is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties and is barred by limitation. In replication to the written statement the plaintiff denied the contentions raised therein and reiterated her averments made in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the order dated 20.6.1994 passed by the defendant, vide which her services were terminated, is illegal, arbitrary and is liable to be set aside?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to benefits of pay and allowances, seniority etc.? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff time barred?OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD 5. Whether the present suit is not maintainable?OPD 6. Relief. To succeed in the suit the plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and Narender son of Jai Bhagwan, Legal Assistant PW2. No evidence was produced by the defendants. After going through that evidence and hearing learned counsel for both the sides, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff. Admittedly, the defendant is a private concern. Service of the R.S.A. No.2016 of 2009 (O&M) -4- plaintiff was on contract basis. It is well settled law that contract of personal service is not specifically enforceable. Correct findings were recorded by both the lower Courts that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the plaintiff was not able to satisfy this Court as to how those findings are not correct and he has also not been able to make out any case. No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. When such is the case, the second appeal is not maintainable and the same is dismissed accordingly. December 7, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge