CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 02 DEL CK 0666

M/S Hare Ram Singh Security Agency vs Prasar Bhart & Ors

Delhi High Court · Decided on 28 February 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajiv Shakdher, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 1961 Of 2018, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 8095 Of 2018
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 368 words

Rajiv Shakdher, J

1.

Issue notice. Ms. Radhalakshmi R. accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1 and Mr. Jasmeet Singh accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.2

and 3.

2.

The writ petition is directed against communication dated 2.2.2018, issued by the respondent no.1. By virtue of this communication, the

petitioner’s contract has been terminated which otherwise would have come to an end on 30.6.2018.

3.

The petitioner, concededly, had been providing security services to respondent no.1 since 1.7.2016. The initial contract was for a period of one year

which was renewed on 1.7.2017. The renewed contract, as indicated above, is to come to an end on 30.6.2018.

4.

Counsel for the petitioner says that the termination is illegal and that while it is ostensibly brought about to save expenses, that, in fact, is not true.

4.1 It is the learned counsel's submission that respondent no.1 is engaging employees at high remuneration, which is an action that rails against its

purported stand of saving expenses.

5.

According to me, these allegations can have no bearing on the present matter. The petitioner’s engagement with respondent no.1 is contractual

and, therefore, will have to be governed by the terms of the contract. Under the terms of the contract, both parties have been given a right to

terminate the contract by giving one month’s written notice to the opposite party without assigning any reason and without payment of any

compensation. This provision obtains in clause-13 of the agreement. Decidedly, one month’s notice has been given to the petitioner via the

impugned communication dated 2.2.2018. Since notice is short by a couple of days, counsel for respondent no.1 says that the petitioner can carry out

the handover exercise on or before 3.3.2018.

6.

Furthermore, I may indicate that there is also an arbitration clause obtaining in the contract. The said clause is numbered as: clause 23. Therefore,

in case, the petitioner is still aggrieved and wishes to challenge what he categorises as wrongful termination, he can always raise a dispute which can

be tried by a duly constituted Arbitral Tribunal in terms of clause 23.

7.

The writ petition has no merit and is, therefore, accordingly dismissed. Pending applications also stand closed.