RAMA BAHADOOR Vs. TUNGABHADRA SUGAR WOPRS P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises from the order dated 30-6-1978 made in Misc. Appeal No. 42 of 1978 by the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Shimoga, affirming the order dt. 3-6-1978 passed on interlocutory Applications Nos. I & II in OS. No. 113 of 1978 by the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Shimoga.

(2.) The revision petitioners are plaintiffs and the respondents are defendants in OS. No. 113 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Shimoga. The plaintiffs are the employees in the company of defendant-1. There is a criminal case pending trial against the plaintiffs in CC. No. 1 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimoga, in respect of charges framed against them having been accused of offences of theft in a building. Pending trial of the said charges of theft by the Magistrate Court, defendant No. 1 having appointed defendant No. 2 to hold a parallel Departmental Enquiry under the Standing Orders of defendant-1 Company against the plaintiffs in respect of the very same charges, Departmental Enquiry is initiated by defendant No. 2. Plaintiffs have filed the aforesaid suit to restrain the defendants by means of a permanent injunction from proceeding with the Departmental Enquiry until the termination of the criminal trial in CC. No.1 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimoga. The case of the plaintiffs is that if during the pendency of the criminal trial, the plaintiffs are put to the necessity of facing a parallel Departmental Enquiry, the defence in the criminal trial will have to be disclosed in the Departmental Enquiry and development of such a situation will jeopardise their defence in the criminal trial. According to the plaintiffs, defendants' refusal to suspend the Departmental Enquiry which is likely to jeopardise their defence in the criminal trial has given them the cause of action to file the suit for permanent injunction. The plaintiffs having filed the said suit for permanent injunction in the Munsiff's Court, had, on the basis of IA. No. I filed under Or. XXXIX, Rr. 1 and 2 CPC., obtained an ex-parte order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with the Departmental Enquiry. However, after the filing of IA. No. II by defendants under Or. XXXIX, R. 4 o f the said Code, the Court of the Munsiff having considered IA. Nos.I and II together made an order dissolving the ex-parte order of temporary injunction. The appeal of the plaintiffs filed against the order of dissolution of ex-parte temporary injunction in the Court of the Civil Judge has been subsequently dismissed, by affirming the order appealed against. Being aggrieved against the order of the Court of the Civil Judge in appeal, the present revision petition is filed by the plaintiffs under S. 115 CPC. to be referred to as the Code. The Court of the Munsiff, on an examination of the case pleaded by the plaintiffs in the plaint and on consideration of the arguments addressed on behalf of the contesting parties, having found that there was no prima facie case made out by the plaintiffs warranting the continuance of the ex-parte order of temporary injunction granted earlier, has dissolved the same. The Court of the Civil Judge, in appeal, having taken the view that there is no legal bar for defendant Company to hold a Departmental Enquiry in respect of the same charges with regard to which criminal trial is pending, has dismissed the appeal.

(3.) The main contention advanced before me by Sri Krishnaiah, learned Counsel who appeared for the petitioners, was that it is a requirement of principle of natural justice that no employer should hold against his employee a Departmental Enquiry in respect of the very same charges which are pending trial in a Criminal case till the termination of the criminal case and as such the order of the subordinate Courts by which grant of temporary injunction to prevent breach of such principle of natural justice was refused, thereby exposing the petitioners to jeopardy, had to be treated by this Court as orders made by the subordinate Courts in exercise of their jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity and reversed.