Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The petitioner was an Assistant Engineer, Grade I in the services of the respondent/Corporation which is admittedly a wholly Government owned Corporation. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner was working earlier in Anglo French Textiles Limited, and after that company was acquired under the provisions of Anglo French Textiles Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Textile Undertaking) Act, 1986 and the undertaking of the Company was vested in the Pondicherry Textiles Corporation Limited, which is a Government owned Corporation, the petitioner was employed by the said Pondicherry Textiles Corporation Limited, in its unit Anglo French Textiles, initially as a weaving Assistant.

This is to inform you that the agreement dated 19th August, 1992 for your engagement as an employee of the Anglo French Textiles of Pondicherry Textiles Corporation Ltd., shall expire on 31st July, 1994.

The Management of the Corporation is thankful to you for the services rendered. You are requested to contact the Accounts Department for settlement of your accounts.

4. This writ petition was filed in April, 1995, after about eight months from the date on which that letter was sent to the petitioner.

10. This judgment of the Supreme Court was referred to and followed in the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Integrated Rural Development Agency v. Ram Pyare Pandey (1995) 1 C.L.R. 781, Learned Counsel also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee U.P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi in support of the same proposition.

11. The Court cannot ordinarily enforce the contract for personal service. It is clear in this case that there is no subsisting contract of employment as between the respondent-corporation and the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be regarded as one governed under Article 311 of the Constitution. Admittedly he is not a civil servant. He is not a workman, to whom the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable. The petitioner's employer is a company registered under the Companies Act and even though he had been working in the Anglo-French Textiles Limited, initially, and was subsequently appointed in the service of the respondent-corporation, under Section 11(2) of the Anglo-French Textiles Ltd. (Acquisition and Transfer of Textiles Undertaking) Act, 1986, that section does not stipulate any terms and conditions of employment. The discretion under that section is given to the respondent-corporation to prescribe such terms and conditions as it thinks appropriate and the respondent-corporation had chosen to employ the officers on contract basis and that is the system which has been adopted in the case of the petitioner. The petitioner has entered into a contract with the respondent - corporation and such contract came to an end on 31.7.1994. The petitioner's case, therefore, does not come within any of the exceptions to the normal rule that courts will to specifically enforce contracts of personal service. The petitioner's remedy can only be by way of damages.