Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

plaintiff is concerned, the deceased plaintiff could not have been terminated from services even by a simplicitor notice, assuming even if the services of the deceased plaintiff were upto mark. Further, even if there is illegal termination of services, it is not possible to grant damages as claimed in as much as the principle of mitigation of damages squarely applies. As per this principle of mitigation of damages enrished in Section 73 of the Contract Act, 1872, even if an employee is illegally terminated from services, he cannot sit at home and he must take sufficient steps to procure alternative employment. The law in this regard is contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as S. C. Shetty Vs. Bharat Nidhi Ltd. AIR 1958 SC 12. Paras 12 and 13 of this judgment are relevant and the same read as under :­ "12. The position at it obtain in the ordinary law of master and servant is quite clear. The master who wrongfully dismisses his servant is bound to pay him such damages as will compensate him for the wrong that he has sustained.

would then be entitled to the whole of the salary, benefits, etc., which he would have earned had he continued in the employ of the master for the full term of the contract, subject of course to mitigation of damages by way of seeking alternative employment."

(iii). If there is violation of the terms of employment while terminating employment and thus termination is illegal, the employee is only entitled to reasonable damages by applying the principle of mitigation of damages. The plaintiff, assuming his services were illegally terminated, failed to show steps taken to obtain alternative employment and hence was rightly held dis­entitled to damages."

SH. VARINDER KUMAR SOOD vs. M/S. NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD.

34. The present case is totally covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, as in that case also, the services of the plaintiff were terminated on the ground that he refused to vacate the quarter, which was alloted to him during his service tenure with the M/s. DCM Ltd. and in the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble High Court has held that since there was no fixed period of employment. As far as the deceased plaintiff was concerned, the deceased plaintiff could have been terminated from the services even by simplicitor notice, assuming services of the deceased plaintiff were up to mark, further even if there is illegal termination of the services, it is not possible to grant damages as claimed, as the principle of mitigation of damages squarely applies as contained in Section 73 of the Contract Act, 1872. If an employee is illegally terminated from services, he cannot sit at home and he must take sufficient steps to procure alternative employment and in this regard, the Hon'ble High Court has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported as S. C. Shetty Vs. Bharat Nidhi Ltd. AIR 1958 SC 12.