Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"This court is unable to persuade itself to agree with the submission of the counsel for the appellants / management that the respondent / employee were duty bound to mitigate the damages. In this regard, the judgment of a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in case of K.G. Hiranandani Vs. Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. reported as MANU/MH/0077/1969 : AIR 1969 Bombay 373, followed by a Single Judge of this Court in the case of S.M. Murray Vs. Fenner (India) Ltd. MANUDE/0205/1986 : 1986 (11) DRJ 12 is relevant. After discussing the explanation to Section 73 of the Act, it was noted in the aforesaid judgment that the explanation was not enacted as a sub­section or a separate paragraph to Section 73, but only appended as an "Explanation to the substantive rule in the first part of section 73". Hence, no duty, which is actionable, can be cast on a party to claim entitlement to damages by first establishing that he had made efforts to obtain alternative employment to mitigate the damages"

102 In Shri Satya Narain Garg vs. DCM Ltd. & Others (Supra), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that:

"Further, even if there is illegal termination of services, it is not possible to grant damages as claimed inasmuch as the principle of mitigation of damages squarely applies. As per this principle of mitigation of damages enshrined 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.S. Shetty vs. Bharat Nidhi Ltd., AIR 1958 SC 12. Paras 12 and 13 of this judgment are relevant and the same read as under:

Justice Valmiki Mehta proceeded to observe that:

"A reference to the evidence led on behalf of the deceased plaintiff shows that the following is the only evidence which is led to show efforts made for alternative employment:

"I did not join any service after termination by defdt No.1. I am not doing any job since 22.9.93 as I could not find any job despite my efforts."

9. Surely, these types of self­serving averments cannot be held as discharge of onus of proof of mitigation of damages. The statement made by the deceased plaintiff is bereft of any details as to which companies or firms or persons he applied to, and on which dates, and for what position, and for what salary and also the details as to why he could not obtain the alternative employment. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the deceased plaintiff, even assuming he was wrongly terminated from services, failed to prove that he had taken sufficient steps for mitigation of damages."....

(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."