MECON LIMITED Vs. SWAPAN KUMAR BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court has heard the Learned Advocates for the respective parties.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed Title Suit No. 19 of 1996 which was placed before the Learned Assistant District and Sessions Judge, Durgapur. Such suit was filed against the defendant No. 1/appellant and the proforma-respondents. In such suit the respondent No. 1 prayed for a decree for declaring that the respondent No. 1 having served the appellant for the period 1st June, 1989 to 8th September, 1995 he is entitled to his remuneration and the appellant cannot deny him such benefits and also a decree for declaration that the termination of the service of the respondent No. 1 is illegal and inoperative. The respondent No. 1 further prayed for "a decree for permanent injunction upon the defendant not disturbed". It further appears that the respondent No. 1 had also filed a Title Suit No. 45 of 1996 with a prayer for a decree for an appropriate amount of compensation for the alleged illegal termination of service, non-issue of service certificate and non-payment of arrears salaries. The appellant contested both the suits and ultimately the Learned Trial Court dismissed both the suits. The appellant filed Title Appeal No. 2 of 1998 against the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 19 of 1996 and the appellant filed Title Appeal No. 3 of 1998 against the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 45 of 1996. The Learned Lower Appellate Court allowed the Title Appeal No. 2 of 1998 on contest and dismissed Title Appeal No. 3 of 1998 on contest. The Learned Lower Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Learned Assistant District Judge, Durgapur in T.S. No. 45 of 1996 and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Learned Assistant District Judge, Durgapur in T.S. No. 19 of 1996 and sent the suit back on remand for full trial by the Learned Trial Court after giving opportunities to the parties to adduce evidence both oral and documentary and directed the Learned Trial Court to proceed with the trial in the light of the observations made in the impugned judgment.

(3.) The appellant has preferred the appeal challenging the order of remand passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Durgapur in Title Appeal No. 2 of 1998. It will thus appear that the present Appeal being F.M.A. 1225 of 2000 is not concerned with the proceedings arising out of Title Suit No. 45 of 1996. The present appeal is concerned only with the proceedings arising out of Title Suit No. 19 of 1996.