UNION OF INDIA Vs. BAPU CHUNDAMAN PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the common judgment and order dated 29/03/1985 passed by the Second Extra Assistant Judge Vadodara in Civil Misc. Appeals Nos. 85 to 94 and 219 to 237 of 1983 confirming the order of interim induction dated May 13 1983 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division Baroda on Ex. 5 filed by the opponents for interim injunction the petitioners (defendants) have filed the revision applications.

(2.) The opponents-plaintiffs have various suits before the Civil Judge Senior Division. Baroda contending that they were inducted in service as members of Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter Refereed as CISF) on the promise that they with not be transferred in any other State unless they are promoted to the higher post. It is their say that this arrangement was made in the presence of Mr. J. J. Mehta Chairman of Indian Petrochemical Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as IPCL ) Senior Sergeant Col. N. A. Dave Sergeant Mr. Barar and Chief Administrative officer Mr. S. H. Shah and in the presence of Mr. D. H. Bist Inspector General of CISF and Mr. Mankodi Chief personal Officer of ClSF. It is their say that prior to 197 they were serving as members of the security force in the IPCL. In 1972 the Director of ClSF propose to the management of the IPCL to allalgamate security staff of the IPCL with CISF IPCL informed the plaintiffs and other watchmen about this. The plaintiffs and other employees objected to such amalgamation on the ground that the employees of CISF are liable to be transferred any sphere in India which the employees of the IPCL are not subject to transfer. It is the say of the plaintiffs that thereafter the Director General of CISF and come to Vadodara for discussion with IPCL management. At the time of discussion the Chairman of IPCL and other officers above mentioned were present. It is further alleged that during the said discussion it was agreed that employees of IPCL objecting to joint CISF will not be transferred out of IPCL till they are promoted and reach the rank of Inspector. It is their case that an agreement was arrived at and that was published in the Journal known as Prerna of I.P.C.L. Relying upon this agreement the plaintiffs had opted to join CISF and it is their case that but for this promise they would not have jointed CISF. It is their contention that in view of the promise given by the Inspector General of CISF the defendants cannot transfer the plaintiffs out of Gujrat State because of principle of promissory estoppel.

(3.) All the plaintiffs had filed applications Ex. 5 for interim injunction contending that if injunction was not granted the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money and that the plaintiffs would be thrown out from the residential quarters allotted to them as members of the security force. The leaned Civil Judge Senior Division. granted ad interim injunction as as prayed for after hearing booth the parties. The said order reads as under: