REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.2775 OF 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2775 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 30 th MARCH, 2011 Raju .... Appellant Versus The Registrar, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra & others. .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the appellant. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) CM No.8383 of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. CM No.8384 of 2010 For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 89 days in filing the appeal, is condoned. Main Appeal Plaintiff – Raju having failed in both the courts below is in second appeal. Case of the plaintiff-appellant is that he joined as Chowkidar in M. M. Engineering College, Mullana on 20.01.1996 but about two days before the filing of the suit, Chairman of the Trust, which is running the college, verbally terminated the plaintiff's service. The plaintiff challenged the said action in the suit and also claimed mandatory injunction directing the defendants to reinstate the plaintiff in service along with all consequential benefits. REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.2775 OF 2010 (O&M) -2- The defendants broadly controverted the plaint allegations and inter alia pleaded that plaintiff was appointed on contractual basis, initially for one year and extended by another year. On expiry of contractual period, the plaintiff had no right to continue in the service. It was also alleged that plaintiff's services were not required as he was appointed Chowkidar for girls' hostel but later on girls' hostel was wound up and shifted in college premises. The plaintiff also remained absent from duty since 28.07.1997. The plaintiff left the service on his own. Since after 19.01.1998, there is no relationship of employee and employer between the parties. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala vide judgment and decree dated 04.04.2008 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has also been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala vide judgment and decree dated 27.02.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that neither one month's notice nor pay in lieu of notice period was given to the plaintiff before terminating his services and therefore the termination is bad. Reference in this regard was made to terms and conditions of the appointment letter. The contention is completely misconceived and meritless. Terms and conditions given in the appointment letter as reproduced at Page 26 of the paper book (in the judgment of the trial court) referred to by the counsel for the appellant inter alia stipulate that the appointment was ad hoc and was for one year in the first instance. Even during the said period, the service could be terminated by giving one month's notice or by giving pay for one month in lieu REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.2775 OF 2010 (O&M) -3- of notice period. However, the service period of one year as per said appointment letter dated 20.01.1996 ended on 19.01.1997. Even the extended period of one year ended on 19.01.1998. Consequently, no notice or salary in lieu of notice period was required to be given, because plaintiff's services were terminated on expiry of the contractual period of service. The notice or salary in lieu of notice period was required to be given only if the defendants had terminated plaintiff's services during the currency of the contractual service period i.e. before the expiry of the said period. But in the instant case, it was not so. Consequently, no notice or salary in lieu of notice period was required to be given. The plaintiff has, therefore, been rightly non-suited by the courts below. In addition to the aforesaid, the college where the plaintiff was employed is a private un-aided college. Private contract of service cannot be enforced through court and if there is any breach of any such contract of private service, the aggrieved party can at best claim damages but cannot claim reinstatement in service or enforcement of the contract of private service. For this added reason as well, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not even maintainable. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Concurrent finding recorded by the courts below against the plaintiff- appellant is perfectly justified and does not warrant interference in second appeal because it is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of evidence. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 30th March, 2011 'raj'