ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. - (1.) The respondent No. 1 was the Chief Executive of the appellant No. 1 at the relevant point of time. Disputes and differences arose by and between the management and the respondents No. 1. In the afternoon of January 31, 1994 the respondent No. 1 went on special leave with effect from February 1, 1994. By a letter dated February 22, 1994 (Pages 52-53 of the paper book) the management offered him retirement. Since the respondent No. 1 did not accept such offer, his service was terminated by a letter dated March 23, 1994 (pages 54-55 of the paper book). Challenging such order of termination the respondent No. 1 moved this Court inter alia asking for his reinstatement. In the Affidavit-in- Opposition the respondent authority took a plea that the post in which the respondent No. 1 was acting stood abolished and as such there was no question of reinstatement. The learned single Judge giving credence to the sequence of events resulting in the order of termination came to a finding that the abolition of post was an act of mala fide and as such directed reinstatement of the respondent No. 1. Being aggrieved by the said order the respondent authority preferred the instant appeal. During the pendency of the appeal the respondent No. 1 floated a company of his own and is at present engaged in such business.
(2.) Mr. Anindya Kumar Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that the respondent No. 1's appointment, as Chief Executive was a contractual; employment. The said contract provided for termination of employment at any point of time in lieu of three months' salary. In the instant case the respondent No. 1 was offered three months' salary in lieu of notice. Hence, such, contract could not be enforced in view of Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It was further contended that there was no public law element involved in the instant case and as such the writ petition was not maintainable. Reliance was placed on the Apex Court decision in this regard (G. B. Mahajan v. Jalgaon Municipal Council) reported in AIR 1991 SC 1153 : 1991 (3) SCC 91 (Paragraph 46). It was further contended that the abolition of post subsequent to the termination of the respondent No. 1 had no relevance and irrespective of such abolition the respondent No. 1 was not entitled to claim for his reinstatement. Detailed submissions were made on the issue of subsequent engagement of the said respondent in a rival business.
(3.) Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, contended that the sequence of events that had resulted in the termination as recorded by the learned single Judge in his judgment would ex facie show that the respondent authority acted mala fide to get rid of the respondent No. 1. It was further contended on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that his subsequent engagement in business should not in any way come in the way of his reinstatement if he was otherwise entitled to. It was further contended that since the respondent authority acted mala fide being a public body they were amenable to writ jurisdiction and the writ Court rightly intervened and directed reinstatement.;