The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently stated that if employment contracts are solely based on their terms and don't involve any statutory regulations, such contracts determining the master-servant relationship may not be subject to specific enforcement.

In the case of WP No.29/2023 (Purushottam Suryabanshi Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.), the Madhya Pradesh High Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of State Bank of India Vs. S.M. Goyal, as reported in 2008 (8) SCC 92. The Supreme Court held in this case that when the relationship between an employer and an employee is solely contractual, and there is no element of statutory regulation, the employment contract is not subject to specific enforcement. Justice Maninder S. Bhatti, a single judge on the bench, made this observation.

In the case of State Bank of India v. S.M. Goyal, the Supreme Court had reaffirmed that if the termination of an employment contract, whether through dismissal or other means, is determined to be illegal or in violation of the contract terms, the appropriate remedy for the employee is to seek damages rather than specific performance. In such situations, the court will typically not declare the termination as null and void, nor will it declare that the employment contract is still in effect, except in very rare circumstances. The usual relief granted will be compensation to the employee for the wrongful termination.

In the present case, the petitioner was initially appointed as a "samooh prerak" in Rewa for a one-year term in 2015. Subsequently, on 07/03/2020, the petitioner was transferred from Rewa to Bhind. The petitioner, an employee, contested this transfer order in the High Court, resulting in the suspension of the order's execution until 30/09/2020. On the 30th of September 2020, the respondent authorities, as directed by the High Court, considered the petitioner's representation against the transfer order and ultimately rejected it. Following this decision by the respondent authorities, the employee once again challenged it by filing another writ petition in the High Court. However, this second writ petition was dismissed on 27/02/2021. Later, when the petitioner attempted to rejoin their position as a "samooh prerak" in accordance with the transfer order, the respondents refused to allow this reinstatement.

Frustrated by the actions of the authorities, the petitioner, who is an employee, once again filed another writ petition with the High Court. The court instructed the respondents to consider rehiring the petitioner if there were no other legal obstacles. However, on 30/11/2021, the respondents issued another order, stating that the contractual agreement had terminated in accordance with clause 17 of the contract due to the petitioner's unauthorized absence for several months. Dissatisfied with these orders from the respondents, the petitioner sought a court directive in the form of a writ of certiorari to annul these orders and a writ of mandamus to compel the reinstatement of the petitioner into service, along with arrears of salary, continuity in service, and other associated rights.

The single judge bench, in its order, also made a note of the fact that the petitioner's absence during the period between the transfer order dated 07/03/2020 and the High Court's interim stay on 26/05/2020 had not been adequately explained or justified. Furthermore, the court also observed that the petitioner's absence for nearly three months between 30/09/2020 and 27/02/2021, which covers the period from the rejection of the petitioner's representation against the transfer order to the dismissal of the writ petition challenging the same decision, had not been sufficiently clarified by the petitioners.

The High Court reached a conclusion based on the Supreme Court's precedent, which has already established that a contractual appointee has limited rights to seek the continuation of their service, especially when the relationship between the employer and the employee is solely contractual and not subject to statutory regulations. Taking into account the fact that the petitioner, in this case, failed to provide valid reasons for their extended absence from the workplace, which goes against the terms outlined in Clause 17 of the Contract governing the employer-employee relationship, the court determined that the respondents did not make an error in terminating the petitioner's position as a 'samooh prerak.'

case: Sudheer Kumar Sharma v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through The Principal Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department & Ors, WRIT PETITION No. 14808 of 2022.