MANISH SHUKLA Vs. PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC for brevity), is directed against the order dated 4.7.2014, passed in regular Civil Suit No.4 -A/2014, by the II Additional District Judge, Raisen, by which the application made by the appellant/plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, has been rejected, on the ground inter alia that the learned trial Court completely failed to consider that a prima facie case was made out in favour of the appellant/ plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction inasmuch as the resignation submitted by the appellant was already withdrawn and that the same could not be accepted by an authority lower in rank than the appellant, yet such a plea of the appellant has not been properly appreciated. It is contended that the Court below has completely failed to appreciate the grounds raised by the appellant to show that the balance of convenience was also tilted in favour of the appellant. It is contended that the Court below has not examined the law well settled in the circumstances where irreparable loss was going to be caused to the appellant and interim injunction was required to be granted to the appellant.

(2.) THE appellant was working on the post of Manager Government Relations & Legal with the respondent No.1 Company. The initial appointment of the appellant was made on selection by the orders of the Human Resource Manager of the Company at Mandideep, District Raisen. However, on account of meritorious services of the appellant, he was promoted upto the rank of Manager and in terms of the duty assigned to him in fact he was treated to be senior most officer. According to respondents themselves, the appellant was working in a managerial capacity and as a supervisory role over the most of other employees/executive and others working in the plant at Mandideep. That being so, the appointing authority of the appellant after his promotion was only the company.

(3.) ALONG with the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC was filed by the appellant seeking a temporary injunction stating that in terms of the e -mail letter sent to the appellant by the respondent No.1 -Company he was to be relieved by 30.4.2014 and in case temporary injunction is not granted and the appellant is relieved from the post, the claim made in the suit would be frustrated. The trial Court considering the said prayer of the appellant, vide order dated 28.4.2014 directed that the appellant be not relieved from the post upto 15.5.2014 till a reply of the application is filed. However, it was said that the appellant would not claim the remuneration for the aforesaid period as of right and that would be subject to the decision of the respondents to pay the said amount.