Regular Second Appeal No. 2376 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2376 of 2008 Date of Decision: 10.2.2009 *** Jagteshwar Singh .. Appellant VS. Bhagat Singh Motor Company Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Ms. Amandeep Kaur Dhiman, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaring his termination order dated 8.11.2002 as illegal, null and void and against the principles of natural justice and also sought relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent-defendants from implementing the said order by relieving him from the post of General Manager/ Services. The stand of the respondent-defendants was that it is not an instrumentality of the State and no declaration suit can lie for declaring the order of termination as illegal, which otherwise has been passed keeping in view the mis-deeds as also on coming to an end the contract of services of the plaintiff. After the contest, the suit was dismissed by the learned trial court as also his appeal by the learned first appellate court below. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the paper-book carefully. It is apparent from the perusal of judgments passed by the Courts below that both the Courts below while placing implicit reliance upon the document Ex.D1 i.e. the appointment letter of the plaintiff wherein there was clause regarding termination of service of the employe by giving Regular Second Appeal No. 2376 of 2008 2 one month's pay or notice in lieu thereof and vice-versa on depositing one month's salary by the employee in case he do not want to continue with the job, held that since the relationship between the parties was contractual, that has come to an end with the completion of contract period. It has also been concurrently held in context to catena of judgments, as reflected in the judgment of the first appellate court below, rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as various High Courts including this very Court, that the respondent-defendants being not fallen within the instrumentality of State, as provided in the Constitution and being a private limited company, cannot be sued in a suit for declaration, challenging his termination and seeking continuity in service. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the approach of the Courts below in denying the sought relief of the plaintiff is either illegal or perverse. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view than that of concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal is made out. The appeal is wholly without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE February 10,2009 Jiten