Contracts of personal service are not specifically enforceable; a private employee cannot seek reinstatement and salary by injunction.

A suit by a private-company employee seeking declaration of continued employment and mandatory injunction for reinstatement and salary was held not maintainable because it was, in substance, enforcement of a contract of personal service. Such contracts are not ordinarily specifically enforceable, so the proper remedy for wrongful termination is damages, not reinstatement. A declaration of subsisting employment under the Specific Relief Act does not override the bar on specific enforcement, and injunction is unavailable to restrain breach of a contract that cannot be specifically enforced. No recognised exception, such as Article 311, industrial dispute protection, or action by a statutory body, applied.

---

---

Issues: Whether a suit by an employee of a private company seeking declaration of continued employment and mandatory injunction directing reinstatement and payment of salary was maintainable and could be granted.

Analysis: The relief claimed was in substance enforcement of a contract of personal service. Such contracts are not ordinarily specifically enforceable, and the remedy for wrongful termination is damages, not reinstatement. A declaration of subsisting employment under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 does not override the restriction in Section 14(1)(a), and Section 41(e) bars an injunction to prevent breach of a contract whose performance cannot be specifically enforced. The recognized exceptions, such as Article 311, industrial disputes, or breach by a statutory body, were not present in the dispute before the Court.

Conclusion: The suit for declaration and mandatory injunction was not maintainable on the facts, and the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of reinstatement or salary through injunction. The notice of motion was dismissed.

---