- (1.) SUNIL Ambwani, J. In this Second Appeal filed on 5th May, 1987 the Court issued notice on 7th May, 1987 to the respondent for final hearing. The appeal, however, could not be heard for almost two decades. The operation of the decree of the lower appellate Court dated 3-3-1987 confirming the decree of the trial Court, declaring the order dated 24-9-1980 terminating petitioner's services as Deputy Engineer (Mechanical), and for reinstatement with full back wages and also Rs. 9,350/- towards costs, was stayed by the Court. The stay vacation application filed on 10-7- 1999 is still pending.
(2.) THE appeal was admitted on 3-2-2003 without framing any issue summoning the record for final hearing. On the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, the substantial questions of law, are framed as follows: (1) Whether the plaintiff's absence for eight consecutive days, would be deemed as leaving the services voluntarily and loss of lien in terms of Rule 25 of Executive Conduct (Discipline and Appeal) Rules of M/s. Bharat Electronic Ltd. , a public sector undertaking? (2) Whether a contract of personal service can be specifically enforced by the Civil Court? Heard Shri S. D. Singh, learned Counsel for appellant and Shri K. P. Agarwal, Senior Advocate for respondent. The "bharat Electronic Ltd. " was established as a Public Sector Corporation. It is wholly owned and controlled by the Central Government. The Executive Conduct (Discipline and Appeal) Rules regulate the matter of conduct of the executives in the corporation. Shri Alok Kumar (the plaintiff) `master of Technology' from IIT Delhi, was appointed on 24-4-1978 and joined the corporation as Probationary Engineer (Mechanical ). He completed his probation and was appointed as Deputy Engineer (Mechanical) in the Works Department w. e. f. 3-8-1978 and was allotted Staff Quarter No. 438.
(3.) THE plaintiff fell ill on 13-2-1980 and was not able to attend to his duties. He informed of his illness to the section head on the same day and made a request for medical leave. He then applied for medical leave with medical certificate to the Chief Administrative Officer at Sahibabad, where he was working under certificate of posting on 15-2-1980. He could not recover until 11-3-1980, and sent a request for extension of medical leave through registered post/a. D. followed by another medical certificate dated 18-3-1980. On his recovery from the illness, the plaintiff presented himself before the concerned authority on 11- 4-1980. He was not allowed to join. A written request and reminder dated 17-4-1980 to the Chief Administrative Officer did not get any response. He was not given any charge-sheet nor any notice or enquiry was initiated. A legal notice was served on him by the corporation on 13-8-1980. He came to know on 25-9-1980 that the Assistant Personnel Officer, Sahibabad Factory of the corporation issued an Office Circular dated 2-4-1980 stating therein that the plaintiff was absent from duties without any authority since 11-2-1980 and as such, he would be deemed to have left the services of the company voluntarily. The plaintiff received a letter dated 24-9- 1980 from the office of General Manager of the corporation on 1- 10-1980, stating that he had lost his lien on the employment w. e. f. 11-2-1980 under Rule 25 of the Executive Conduct (Discipline and Appeal) Rule. The plaintiff then filed a suit praying for a declaration that his services were illegally terminated, a mandatory injunction to allow him to continue in service and for recovery of salary from 11-4-1980 to 30-11-1980 quantified at Rs. 9,350/ -.;