Termination of contract

Temporary injunction could only be granted if there was a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss to the plaintiff

Court could not compel ongoing co-operation between commercial parties where continuous supervise performance was required

Licence granted to the plaintiff in terms of contract was not a licence coupled with any interest and there was no implied covenant as to not revoke such licence in case breach of such contract so as to make it irrevocable in the absence of lawful termination

Balance of convenience did not require undoing the termination of contract

Grant of temporary injunction, in the present case, would force one of two parties either to fall back on and suffer delay in execution of the project to its own detriment and national interest

If plaintiff ultimately succeeded in establishing that termination of contract was unwarranted then compensation would be available from offending parties in the form of damages

Balance of convenience and irreparable loss did not lie in favour of plaintiff, in circumstances

Application for grant of temporary injunction was dismissed accordingly.

One of the clauses of the petitioner's employment contract specifically dealt with the termination of contract on one month's notice on either side or payment of one month's basic pay in lieu thereof

Impugned termination letter explicitly revealed that the termination of the petitioner's services was made with immediate effect with one month's basic pay in lieu of notice in accordance with said clause of the employment contract

As such, the impugned termination letter had been issued strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of contract employment duly accepted by the petitioner at the time of joining and now at a belated stage he could not deviate from the same

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

One of the clauses of the petitioner's employment contract specifically dealt with the termination of contract on one month's notice on either side or payment of one month's basic pay in lieu thereof

Impugned termination letter explicitly revealed that the termination of the petitioner's services was made with immediate effect with one month's basic pay in lieu of notice in accordance with said clause of the employment contract

As such, the impugned termination letter had been issued strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of contract employment duly accepted by the petitioner at the time of joining and now at a belated stage he could not deviate from the same

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Grievance of petitioners was that other similarly placed employees (footballers) were regularized in service while their contracts were terminated

Validity

Petitioners were discriminated against by respondents under Art.25 of the Constitution

No intelligible differentia existed which could distinguish those 98 stipend workers who were regularized and petitioners who were not and were terminated

Such was also applicable to the petitioners vis-a-vis those similarly placed persons on contract who were terminated like petitioners and then rehired again on temporary contracts in a matter of few days in some cases

Authorities had also violated the provisions of the Art.4 of the Constitution

High Court directed the authorities to consider the case of all petitioners for regularization and remanded the case to them

Petition was allowed accordingly.

Mere repudiation, frustration, cancellation or expiration of the contract does not give rise to putting an end to arbitration clause.

Where the services of contract employee were terminated before time, at best, he could claim damages to the extent of unexpired period of his service

Constitutional petition was not maintainable.