AMCO BATTERIES Vs. S RAMMOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant has filed this appeal challenging the interlocutory order of injunction granted by the civil court restraining the defendant from proceeding with a domestic enquiry. Shorn of details the bare facts are as follows :

(2.) The respondent herein is an employee working under the appellant. On April 19, 1993, he was charge-sheeted for wrongly certifying sodium chloride as sodium sulphate, as a result of which the employer claims to have sustained heavy loss. The General Manager of one of the units of the defendant company was appointed as enquiry officer. On May 4, 1993, notice of enquiry was issued to the plaintiff-respondent. In response, on May 19, 1993, the plaintiff appeared and sought permission to be represented by a lawyer to defend him in the enquiry. The permission was declined. Thereupon, the present suit was filed with the following prayer.

(3.) (a) Declaring that the enquiry instituted, vide letter dated May 4, 1993, and the proceedings of the enquiry dated May 19, 1993, and further proceedings of the enquiry as null and void. or Direct the defendant company to permit the plaintiff to engage an advocate to assist him in the enquiry as requested by him, vide letter dated May 19, 1993.