LAWS(CAL)-1991-7-39

PURNA CHANDRA DAS Vs. WARRENI NDUSTRIAL LTD

Decided On July 17, 1991
PURNA CHANDRA DAS Appellant
V/S
WARRENI NDUSTRIAL LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 2 7th March, 1991 passed by the learned judge, 5th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title suit No. 433 of 1991 whereby the court below rejected the prayer for ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant opposite party from proceeding any further with the domestic enquiry in terms of memo of charges dated 31st march The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit against the defendant/opposite party for a mandatory temporary injunction commanding the defendant opposite party to revoke the order of suspension and to pay the difference of the salary and allowances with effect from the date of suspension till the date of revocation, and also for a mandatory temporary injunction commanding the defendant / opposite party to permit the plaintiff / appellant to resume duty.

(2.) THE defendant/respondent is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act. The plaintiff/appellant was appointed as Pharas bearer in the General Department of the respondent company with monthly salary of Rs 502. 1 Op. inclusive of all allowances. The letter of appointment provides condition that the service of the plaintiff / appellant could be terminated by giving one month's notice and in case of misconduct the defendant company reserved the right to invoke the disciplinary power. It also appears that the charge-sheet was issued against the plaintiff/appellant by the respondent company alleging that a sum of rs. 1100/- was stolen from the brief case of one of the directors of the company. It is not necessary to go into the fact in details, inasmuch as, a charge sheet was issued against plaintiff / appellant and the plaintiff/appellant was under suspension and a fact finding enquiry was started. At this stage, the plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for mandatory temporary injunction and also filed an application for injunction with a prayer for ad interim injunction which was refused by the court below. It also appears that for the theft of the said sum from the brief case of one of the directors a FIR was; lodged to the Officer in- Charge, park Street Police Station. It is also admitted that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta had passed order on 10th January 1991 discharging the accused and after the appellant was discharged in the said criminal proceeding, the defendant company by the letter dated 13th february 1991 informed the plaintiff / appellant that an enquiry officer has been appointed to hold the domestic enquiry.

(3.) MR. Syed Ataunnabi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the. appellant contended in the first place that the court below was wrong in not passing the interim order as prayed for, inasmuch as if the interim order was not passed by the court below, in that event, the defendant company would proceed with the enquiry and would conclude the enquiry and if the enquiry was allowed to be concluded and the petitioner could be removed from service, in that event, the suit would become in fructuous. It was further submitted that the plaintiff/appellant had a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was in favour of granting injunction.