Ast 1 sa703.08.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.703 OF 2008 Shridhar Vasant Mhashelkar. ... Appellant. Vs. Siroplast Ltd. ... Respondent. -------------- Mr.Mandar Limaye for Appellant. Mr.D.J.Bhanage for Respondent. -------------- CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : 26 th MARCH, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The Appellant is original Plaintiff. He had filed Suit(RCS No.63 of 1995) seeking declaration that the order of his termination was bad in law and that he was entitled to claim continuity of service. He also sought mandatory injunction for his reinstatement in service. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court holding that the termination was defective. The Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the Suit. Ast 2 sa703.08.sxw 3. Counsel for the Appellant would submit that the termination notice is patently bad in law for the reason that it does not provide for payment of one month salary in lieu of notice or clear period of one month’s time for termination. He would submit that when the Appellant was asked not to report for the work from next day i.e. 13 th August, 1995 on wards, it could be inferred that the termination was immediate and the notice was illusory in nature. He contended that such termination was patently erroneous and bad in law in view of “Uptron India Ltd. Vs. Shammi Bhan and Anr.” (1998) 6 SCC 538”. 4. On perusal of the termination notice, it is quite clear that the appellant was informed that his services would be terminated on 12 th September, 1995. The notice was issued on 12 th August, 1995. He was asked not to attend work from next day i.e. 13 th August, 1995. Still, however, it is clearly stated in the notice that the payment of contractual salary for the notice period shall be paid to him. The contents are as stated below. “You shall therefore, cease to be in the employment of the Company with effect from the close of work on 12 th September, 1995. You are advised to not to report for work from 13 th August, 1995 onwards, and the final settlement of your dues will be effected after 12 th September, 1995 subject to your handing over all the Company property, Ast 3 sa703.08.sxw papers etc. to Mr. N.D.Agwan, DGM-Works. You will be paid contractual salary for the period of the said notice of termination of employment.” 5. The record shows that the Appellant never disputed payment of the salary for the relevant period between 12 th August, 1995 till 12 th September, 1995. Service contract provided for notice of one month or payment of salary for one month in lieu of notice in case of termination of the service. The contractual obligation is performed by the employer on account of the payment of salary for the relevant period of the notice. The fact that he was not assigned any work from next day is not much relevant because he was directed to hand over the charge of his assignment. Assignment of work is discretionary power of the employer. The case law relied upon by the Appellant is in the context of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Appellant is not covered under Model Standing Orders and his case was based on contract of employment. The First Appellate Court seems to have properly interpreted the employment contract, particularly clause 8(b) of the appointment letter dated 21/10/1987. In this view of the matter, there appears no substantial question of law involved in the second appeal. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. [ V.R.KINGAONKAR, J ]