BANNARI AMMAN SUGAR LIMITED Vs. R SAKTHIVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED over the fair and decreetal order dated November 24, 2006 passed by the district Munsif, Coimbatore in I. A. No. 2235/2006 in O. S. No. 2690/2006, C. R. P. No. 1729/2006 has been filed. While so, C. R. P. No. 1730/2006 has been preferred to strike off the plaint itself on the ground that the suit itself is not maintainable.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are as follows: the respondent originally filed O. S. No. 756/2006 against 1) M/s. Bannari Amman sugars Ltd. rep. by its Executive President and 2) M/s. Bannari Amman Sugars Employees, thrift and Credit Society rep. by its Secretary, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in anyway interfering with his day to day life and personal liberties either by causing danger to the person or otherwise under the guise of collecting money due to them. Thereafter the petitioner sent a letter dated April 7, 2006 requesting the respondent to remit a sum of Rs. 2,30,208. 50 which has been received as advance by the respondent within seven days from the date of receipt of the letter. The respondent filed a petition in Crl. O. P. No. 23432/2006 and obtained an order of anticipatory bail on the ground that he resigned his job and gave consent letter to recover the misappropriated amount of Rs. 2 lakhs by adjusting the same from the retirement benefits. The petitioner-company sent show cause notice to the respondent on September 23, 2006, for which the respondent sent a detailed reply dated september 27, 2006 stating that in order to get over the directions of the Honourable High court as an after thought the petitioner has issued show cause notice seeking explanation from the ex-employee, who has already resigned from the service long back. The petitioner sent a show cause notice dated september 29, 2006 directing the respondent to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for committing the misappropriation. The petitioner has also sent a letter on October 12, 2006 to the respondent stating that it is true that on November 3, 2005 the respondent has submitted a letter of resignation to the employer, but the same was not accepted and that the resignation would be considered only after the respondent clearing the charge of fraud played by him and for which the respondent has sent a reply dated October 19, 2006 denying the allegations levelled against him and subsequent to that the petitioner sent a letter dated November 18, 2006 stating that charges have been framed against him. Thereafter, the respondent filed the present suit O. S. No. 2690/2006 for permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioner-defendant from holding any domestic enquiry. The respondent has also filed an application in I. A. No. 2235/2006 praying for a temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from conducting any domestic enquiry till the disposal of the suit. The trial court granted ad-interim injunction for a limited period. Challenging the same, C. R. P. No. 1729/2006 has been preferred and C. R. P. No. 1730/2006 has been preferred stating that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the very suit.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.