Case Details

Citation(s)
1972 SLD 3042 = 1972 PLC 48
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 139of 1962, decided on 3rd December 1970.
Presented By: Muhammad Akram, J
M. Sarwar Rana for Petitioner. Muhammad, Yaqub Khan for
Respondent.

M. RASHID AHMAD-Petitioner

VERSUS

NATIONAL & GRINDLAYS BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER-Respondents

Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 21, 42, 55

Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (III of 1960), S. O. 13(4) read with Speck Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 21, 42 & 55-Industrial dispute-Master and servant- Contract for personal service-Person employed in private firm-Governed by rule of master and servant-Can sue and claim damages for breach of contract for personal service but not entitled to declaration or injunction under S: 42 or 55 of Speck Relief Act, 1877-Specific performance of contract involving personal service-Not permisible under ordinary law in civil Courts-Specific relief, in suitable cases, , cast, however, be granted under special law by Industrial. Court by ordering re instatement of ordinary worker wrongfully dismissed-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 34. In the case of a private Banking Company the position of its servant is that of an ordinary employee and in essence the relationship between the two is that of a master and servant under the general law. As such his position is wholly different from that of a servant of the State or a statutory corporation holding public office or performing public functions and duties under a statute. Any employee, if he feels aggrieved and considers that he has been wrongfully and illegally discharged from service could seek from a Court damages and not re-instatement which the Court is not competent to grant. The services of a servant cannot be forced upon his master. The master is always entitled to say that he is prepared to pay damages to the servant .for breach of contract of service but will not accept his services. A contract for personal service as will appear from section 21(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 cannot be specifically enforced. Even apart from section 21(b) such a contract was unenforceable under section 21(a) wherein it is provided that a contract for the non-performance of which compensation in money is adequate relief cannot be specifically enforced. In a case where there is a contract between a master and a servant, the master agreeing to pay the salary and the servant agreeing to render personal service, it is obvious that money compensation can afford full relief, for all…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register