Hari Om vs Oriental Bank of Commerce and Others

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—It is by now well-settled that a contract of personal service is not specifically enforceable. The remedy, if any, can only sound in damages against the person who has obtained personal services for himself from his pocket. Specific performance is ordinarily not grantable in a contract of personal service or permissible under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and Sections 14(1)(b) and 34 thereof. The law on the subject is indicated in a long string of precedents including: S.R. Tewari Vs. District Board Agra and Another, Sirsi Municipality by its President Sirsi Vs. Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis, ; Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli and Others Vs. Lakshmi Narain and Others, Bank of Baroda Ltd. Vs. Jeewan Lal Mehrotra, ; Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co. Ltd., Rae Bareli and another Vs. Badri Nath Dixit and others, ; Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa, etc. A finding of fact has been returned by the Labour Court in Industrial Reference No. 282 of 2011 that the petitioner was employed as a personal driver of Sh. A.K. Tangri, Deputy General Manager, Regional Office of the Oriental Bank of Commerce at Karnal, Haryana and was paid salary by the said officer. This perquisite was reimbursable by the Bank as part of the salary package of the Deputy General Manager. In the capacity of a personal driver, the petitioner served his master for a little under three years i.e. from 2001 to 2004.

The petitioner was not selected or appointed by the Bank. There was no contract for service between the petitioner and the Bank. Maintaining a logbook of the official car put at the disposal of the DGM by the Bank would not establish direct relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the respondent-Bank. The purpose of a logbook is to separate official and private use of vehicle as a check against misuse. If the petitioner was disengaged by Sh. A.K. Tangri it would not amount to retrenchment. Nor would the petitioner have a right to protection of Sections 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ''the'' Act). A contract of personal service is different from a ''contract for service'' as explained in Kishore Lal Vs. Chairman, Employees State Insurance Corporation, . The petitioner at best can avail his remedies only personally against Sh. A.K. Tangri, in case, he felt that he was led up the garden path. Besides, the industrial reference was made by the appropriate Government at New Delhi and the award dated 12.12.2012 has been passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Karkardooma Courts Complex, Delhi. It is a debatable issue whether this Court can exercise supervisory jurisdiction over an award passed by a Tribunal sitting in Delhi. If the appropriate Government at Delhi had made the reference u/s 2(a)(i) read with Section 10(1)(c) of the Act normally all further proceedings arising out of the award would lie in the Delhi High Court on the principal of situs without there being any contraindication. The termination, if any, had taken place at Karnal and the appropriate Government being the Central Government the reference was not adjudicated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to empower it to examine the award. However, since the petitioner has no case on merits worth consideration, it is not necessary to go into the issue of jurisdiction since the cause of action can be said to be arising at Karnal within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

No merit.