Contractual employment in unaided institutions: wrongful termination led to damages, not reinstatement, and compensation was enhanced.

In a purely contractual employment relationship in an unaided educational institution, specific performance of service was not the normal remedy. Despite the employer's failure to obtain the written consent required under the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989, the employees' conduct and the resulting loss of confidence made reinstatement inappropriate, so compensation in damages was the proper relief. The Court also held that compensation had to be assessed on actual loss and service benefits, not by importing industrial law notions of automatic reinstatement and full back wages, and it enhanced the lump sum compensation accordingly.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the termination of the services of the employees in an unaided educational institution could be set aside and reinstatement directed despite the relationship being contractual and the management having lost confidence; (ii) whether the compensation awarded in lieu of reinstatement required modification and enhancement.

Issue (i): Whether the termination of the services of the employees in an unaided educational institution could be set aside and reinstatement directed despite the relationship being contractual and the management having lost confidence

Analysis: The institution was an unaided educational institution and the relationship between the management and its employees was contractual in nature. In such a setting, specific performance of a contract of service was not the normal relief. Although the management failed to obtain the written consent of the Director of Education required by Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989, the conduct attributed to the employees, the show-cause response, and the resulting loss of confidence made reinstatement inappropriate. The proper consequence of the invalid termination was compensation in damages, not restoration to service.

Conclusion: Reinstatement was not available, and compensation in lieu of service was the proper relief.

Issue (ii): Whether the compensation awarded in lieu of reinstatement required modification and enhancement

Analysis: Compensation had to reflect the principles governing wrongful termination under a master-servant relationship, rather than the industrial law rule of automatic reinstatement with full back wages. The award based on last pay drawn was found unsatisfactory, and the Court held that actual pay and allowances for the relevant years, together with provident fund and retiral benefits and appropriate deductions, should govern the computation. On that basis, the Court enhanced the lump sum compensation to achieve a just and final settlement of the dispute.

Conclusion: The compensation was enhanced and fixed at Rs. 25 lakhs for Kailash Singh and Rs. 18 lakhs for Jeffry Jobard, with prior payments to be adjusted.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded to the extent of modifying the monetary relief, while affirming that reinstatement was not warranted in the facts of the case; the employees were awarded enhanced compensation instead of restoration to service.

Ratio Decidendi: In a purely contractual employment relationship in an unaided educational institution, wrongful termination ordinarily gives rise to damages and not reinstatement, and compensation must be assessed on the basis of the actual loss suffered rather than by importing industrial law principles of automatic back wages and continuity of service.

---