Headline: Civil courts possess jurisdiction to award damages for wrongful termination in purely contractual private sector employment.

The Appellant, a former Branch Manager at the Allahabad branch of IndusInd Bank (a private entity), was dismissed from service on 19.05.2014 following a disciplinary enquiry into a fraud amounting to ₹41 lakhs committed by a subordinate

After his departmental appeal was rejected, the Appellant filed O.S. No. 180 of 2015 seeking a declaration that the termination was a nullity, a mandatory injunction for reinstatement, and back wages

The Trial Court (Additional Civil Judge, Allahabad) dismissed the suit on 10.07.2023, ruling that it lacked inherent jurisdiction under Section 9 CPC read with the U.P. amendment to Order 39 Rule 2(2) CPC, which bars injunctions against dismissal orders

The Appellant challenged this dismissal, arguing that as a private bank employee with no remedy under Article 226 or Service Tribunals, the Civil Court was his only forum

1. Whether the Civil Court lacked inherent jurisdiction to examine whether the plaintiff's termination from the service of the defendant Bank was illegal?

2. What relief could have been granted by the Court to the plaintiff in the suit?

The Court relied on Section 9 of the CPC, which grants Civil Courts expansive jurisdiction unless expressly or impliedly barred

It applied Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which prohibits specific performance of personal service contracts

The Court followed the "Three Exceptions" rule from State Bank of India v. S.N. Goyal, noting that reinstatement can only be granted to civil servants (Art. 311), workmen (Industrial Disputes Act), or employees of statutory bodies terminated in breach of mandatory statutes

It also considered the U.P. amendment to Order 39 Rule 2(2) CPC (via Section 13 of U.P. Act 57 of 1976), which restricts injunctions against dismissal orders

Finally, it applied Section 40 of the Specific Relief Act, allowing damages in lieu of or in addition to an injunction

The High Court observed that IndusInd Bank is a non-statutory private body, making the Appellant’s employment purely contractual and not governed by statutory rules or Article 12 of the Constitution

Consequently, while the Appellant cannot seek reinstatement or a declaration of continued service due to the bar in Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, he is entitled to sue for "wrongful dismissal"

The Court reasoned that the Trial Court misapplied the U.P. amendment to Order 39 Rule 2(2) CPC; while that provision prevents the stay of a dismissal order through an injunction, it does not oust the Civil Court’s jurisdiction to determine the legality of the termination and award damages

The Court noted that the Appellant had moved an amendment application to claim damages which the Trial Court carelessly left undisposed

Since internal bank rules do not expressly bar civil suits and no other forum (like Art. 226 or Tribunals) is available to a private bank employee, the Civil Court remains the proper forum for a claim of damages

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Trial Court’s judgment. The suit (O.S. No. 180 of 2015) was restored, and the Trial Court was directed to decide the matter on merits within six months