M GANESAN Vs. BLUE STAR LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of interim suspension made in C.M.P.No, 566 of 1980 in O.P. 107 of 1989 by Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras on 7.4.1989.

(2.) THE petitioners filed C.M.P.No.6076 of 1989 along with C.R.P.No. 1276 of 1989 and got an interim stay till 12.6.1989 and notice returnable by then. THE respondent has preferred a petition in C.M.P.No. 6687 of 1989 for vacating the stay in C.M.P.No.6076 of 1989 and C.M.P.No. 6682 of 1989 to dismiss the order in C.R.P.No. 1276 of 1989 made on 13.5.1989. When these petitions came up for hearing, by consent of both parties, the main C.R.P. itself is taken up for disposal.

(3.) N.G.R. Prasad, the learned counsel for petitioners contends that filing of an application under Sec.24 of the Civil Procedure Code by the respondent Management and obtaining an ex parte suspension of the order dated 283.1989 in I A. 6974 of 1989 is in gross abuse of presence of Court. The learned counsel further argues that the trial Court has granted ex parte interim injunction on 283.1989 and as such the authorities ought to have paid the wages normally on 313.1989. For not paying the wages, the respondent management ought to have moved the IX Court on 5.4.1989 itself. If it thought it necessary to vacate the ex parte injunction. The failure is on the part of the respondent to move the IX Court, but, instead, it sought to move a transfer O.P. with ulterior motive which is a gross abuse of process of Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the processing under section 24 of C.P.C. being original in character, the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras ought to have vacated or confirmed the order under Order 30, Rule 4, C.P.C. and ought not to have passed an ex parte suspension of the order of the ex parte injunction. The learned counsel relies upon a decision of this Court in Subbareddi v. Naraya-naswami Reddy, (1948)2 M.L.J. 251 and Sri Rangam Municipality v. R. Palaniswami, A.I.R. 1951 Mad 807 The learned counsel further contends that a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable, in view of the dieta of this Court which is reported in Sunda-ram Pillai v. V. Govindaswami (1985)2 M.L.J.374 at 378. The sum and substance of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the action of the respondent in filing the Tr.O.P. No. 107 of 1989 to suspend the operation of order in LA. 6974 of 1989 and the action of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in granting interim order suspending the operation of the order in I.A. 6974 of 1989 are illegal, especially when the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras could have disposed of the matter on merits when both sides wanted a transfer and the matter was already before him Prasad, the learned counsel for petitioners also contends that the respondent cannot deduct the wages as per condition 51. for continues service of the petitioners and as such the learned counsel contends prima facie, there is no. case for deducting the wages and the order of Abdul Hadi, J. granting interim stay should be respected by the management-respondent. Prasad refers to me a decision of Calcutta High Court in State Bank of India and others v.Amal Kumar Sem and others, (1988)1 Labour Law Notes 827 and the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Bank of India, Bombay and another v. T.S. Kelawaiar Bombay and others (1988)2 L.L.J. 264.