Delhi District Court
Shirdi Sai Baba Mandir vs Shirdi Sai Baba Vidya Mandir on 4 July, 2007
1
In the court of Sh. Parveen Singh: Civil Judge: Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
Suit no. 165/07
In the matter of:
Shirdi Sai Baba Mandir
Employees Welfare Association (Registered)
Through Secretary, Mr. S.K. Mishra,
Regd. office at:-
132, Lok Nayak Apartment,
Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085.
Correspondence address at:
CSC-5, Pocket D-10, Sector 7,
Rohini, Delhi-110085 ....Plaintiff.
Versus
Shirdi Sai Baba Vidya Mandir,
Avom Dharmarth Ausdhalaya,
Nirman Samiti, Through its
President/General Secretary
CSC-5, Pocket D-10, Sector 7,
Rohini, Delhi-110085. ....Defendant.
Suit for permanent and Mandatory injunction
Date of institution: 29.03.2007.
Date on which reserved for Judgment: 26.05.2007.
Date of decision: 04.07.2007.
Judgment
1 The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent and
mandatory injunction against the defendant.
2 The case of the plaintiff is that it is the employees welfare
association duly registered with the Registrar of Societies and is filing
2
the present suit through its secretary.
3 It is further the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff society was
constituted to look after the welfare of the employees of defendant
society. The plaintiff society having near or about 40 members. The
defendant society through its management is looking after Shirdi Sai
Baba Mandir situated at CSC-5, Pocket D-10, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi-
110084 and also running one Dharmarth Aushalaya besides other
institutions.
4 It is further the case of the plaintiff that office bearer of
defendant society are running the same with mismanagement and
misappropriating funds and donations to satisfy the personal whims
and fancies against the sentiments of the employees and devotees of
deity of Sh. Sai Baba. Against this conduct, when the plaintiff
contacted the management of defendant, they adopted abusive
attitude and threatened the plaintiff. The representative of the
plaintiff made a complaint with P.S. Rohini on 17.03.2007 pointing on
the irregularity of management of Mandir by defendant.
5 Through aforesaid letter, in case the police failed to take
action against the corrupt office bearers of the defendant society, the
plaintiff society sought permission for staging a peaceful demonstration
and dharna in front of the Shirdi Sai Baba Mandir. On 20.03.2007, the
members of the plaintiff society sat on peaceful demonstration and
dharna near Shirdi Sai Baba Temple. There were about hundred or
one fifty devotees but, the local police without paying any heed to the
request of the office bearers, started insulting, abusing them nearly 18-
20 members of the plaintiff society were taken into custody. The
members of the society again requested to the DCP, North West vide
letter dated 22.03.07, for a permission to stage dharna outside the
Shirdi Sai Baba Temple. The office bearers of the plaintiff society also
met the office bearers of defendant society but the meeting was not
fruitful.
3
6 On the contrary, the management society threatened the
members with termination from the service. Thereafter, the defendant
did not allow the members of plaintiff society even to enter the temple
premises and, there is an apprehension that the members of plaintiff
society may be terminated from their services without any sufficient
cause. It is further submitted that the defendant has no right or
authority to debar/suspended/terminate the employees of defendant
society without any cause or reason. Hence, the present suit.
7 In the WS filed by the defendant a preliminary objection is
taken that the present suit is barred by the Specific Relief Act and is
liable to be dismissed.
8 It is denied that the management of defendant society has
created atmosphere of insecurity, mis management, callousness and
mis appropriation of funds and donations to satisfy their personal whims
and fancies. It is submitted that the complaint given by the plaintiff
against the office bearers of society was false and frivolous. It is further
submitted that the employees including Pujaris were on strike on
20.03.2007. Since the puja and aarti of Shirdi Sai Baba could not have been left unattended, the management had to terminate services of pujari Sh. Guna Nidhi, Sh. Shambhu Saran Mishra, Sh. Bishnu Sharma, Sh. Padam Sharma and Sh. Santosh Sharma w.e.f. 03.04.2007 by paying them one month's notice in terms of their appointment letter.
9 It is denied that the strike of employees of defendant society was peaceful in nature. It is denied that any office bearers of plaintiff society ever met with management of defendant society.
10 I have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record very carefully. In view of the objection of defendant that the suit is barred by the Specific Relief Act, the arguments on the maintainability of suit were heard. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has 4 submitted that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as the plaintiff is seeking enforcement of personal service contract, thus, the suit is barred u/s 41 of Specific Relief Act. Counsel for the defendant has relied upon the judgment Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co. Ltd. and another Vs. Sh. Badari Nath Dixit 1997 (75) FLR 25 (Sum.) . On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that plaintiff is not seeking enforcement contract of service but, is only seeking restrainment against the defendant from terminating the services of its members.
11 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. From the reading of the plaint, it is very clear that the plaintiff is seeking restrainment against the defendant from termination of the services of its members. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant may illegally terminate services of its members. Therefore, the present suit is maintainable.
12 In my considered opinion, in the garb of restrainment order, the plaintiff is seeking enforcement contract of service of its employees. It is well settled law that the service contracts are not forceable and specific performance of the same cannot be availed. Therefore, the remedy is that the plaintiff shall sue for damages and not a suit for permanent injunction thereby indirectly seeking enforcement of personal contracts of service of its members.
13 In these circumstances, I find that the present suit is barred u/s 41 of Specific Relief Act and, is not maintainable. The suit is dismissed as not maintainable. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open (Parveen Singh) court on 04.07.2007. Civil Judge/Delhi. This judgment contains 4