ALBERT DAVIT LIMITED Vs. ANURADHA CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal preferred by the appellant is directed against Order No. 16 dated September 9, 2003 by Shri. P.L. Dutta learned Judge 11th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 225 of 2003. By the order impugned the learned Judge allowed the application for temporary injunction under Order No. 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff/respondent Ms. Anuradha Choudhury and restrained the defendants from proceeding with the departmental proceeding initiated by the defendants against the plaintiff by a letter dated November 9, 2002 issued by defendant No. 2 till disposal of the suit.

(2.) The factual matrix leading to the instant appeal may briefly be stated thus. As per case of the plaintiff she has been working for gain in Albert Davit Ltd., at 15, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta since September, 1990 and is holding the post of Junior Executive, Sales Promotion Department of the said company. Defendant No. 3 has been engaged as Enquiry Officer by defendant No. 2 to conduct a Domestic Enquiry against the plaintiff on the false allegation of misconduct and the purported domestic enquiry is being conducted by defendant No. 3. The plaintiff joined the said company in the month of September, 1990, and rendered her service to full satisfaction of the authority throughout the tenure without any blemish. The plaintiff is a well educated lady having good academic background. Defendant No. 1 joined the said company as a Group Product Manager in the month of September, 2001 and was provided with the sitting accommodation with the plaintiff in the same A.C. Chamber wherein the plaintiff has been sitting since 1997. Within a very short span of time the plaintiff felt that defendant No. 1 was frantically trying to develop personal and close relation with the plaintiff and taking advantage of loneliness inside the chamber defendant No. 1 intended to insult and outrage the modesty of the plaintiff and started using slang language by exhibiting gestures which badly hampered the privacy and security of the plaintiff. The language being used by defendant No. 1 was provocative and vulgar as a result of which the working environment in the chamber became unsafe. The plaintiff tried to restrain defendant No. 1 by requesting the latter to amend his nature and not to use any vulgar language. In spite of that defendant No. 1 provoked the plaintiff with unwelcome sexual demands by words and gesture. The plaintiff was compelled to stay in the office even after 5 p.m. when all other employees of the company left the office and taking the said advantage defendant No.1 extended his sexual advance which was refused by the plaintiff as a result of which defendant No. 1 became furious and threatened to oust the plaintiff from the A.C. Chamber. On December 18, 2001, the plaintiff was ousted from the chamber with the aid and assistance of defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 all along supported defendant No. 1 and started discussing his sexual life with some other ladies and the plaintiff was compelled to participate 5 in such obnoxious discussion. Defendant No. 2 also expressed his desire to the plaintiff to accompany him after office hours and to spend and drink with him for his mental pleasure. Being annoyed the plaintiff brought the matter to the notice of Mr. A.K. Kothari, Chairman of the Company by the letter dated June 21, 2002. Between August 8 and August 14, 2002 the Company had a meeting at Taj Bengal, Calcutta. Defendant No. 1 made continuous 5 efforts to allure the plaintiff to satisfy his ill desire. The plaintiff had to attend the meeting in a conference hall at the behest of defendant No. 1. On August 12, 2002 the plaintiff requested defendant No. 1 to instruct the attendants to switch off the A.C. machine, but in reply defendant No. 1 said: "Come close to me, you will start feeling hot." On August 13, 2002 defendant No. 1 abused the plaintiff in presence of the senior Officers of the Company 5 for arriving at about 9 a.m. and not reaching at 8.30 a.m. Since the highest authority of the company did not extend his help and co-operation, the plaintiff lodged a formal diary in Bowbazar P.S. on September 12, 2002. On September 27, 2002 a written complaint was filed in Bowbazar P. S. against defendant Nos. 1 and 2. On receipt of the written complaint, the Bowbazar Police Station initiated a criminal case being Bowbazar P.S. 5 Case No. 335 dated October 30, 2002 under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code. In the meantime by a letter dated November 9, 2002 defendant No. 2 informed the plaintiff that defendant No. 3 has been engaged as Enquiry 9 Officer to conduct the Domestic enquiry and the date of enquiry was fixed on November 28, 2002. On November 26, 2002 defendant No. 2 wrote another letter to the plaintiff informing the latter that unconnected issue regarding modesty of a woman would not form part of the chargesheet. In reply to the said letter the plaintiff by a letter dated December 4, 2002 made it clear that if the background of the incident was not allowed to be brought on record the purport and object of the domestic enquiry would be frustrated and justice would be denied. It is not possible for the plaintiff to attend the departmental proceeding and disclose her defence in the departmental proceeding prior to hearing of the criminal proceeding and accordingly the plaintiff has prayed for an order of injunction restraining the defendants from deferring the disciplinary proceeding/domestic enquiry initiated against her till disposal of the suit.

(3.) In the written objective defendant No. 1 has averred inter alia that the petition for temporary injunction is misconceived, not maintainable and is bad in law and it has been filed in gross suppression and misrepresentation of material facts. Further case of defendant No. 1 is that the allegations of gender/sexual harassment had been made, against him for the first time after his complaint dated August 17, 2002, against the plaintiff and as such the allegations are patently by way of after thought and made for the purpose of harming and damaging his career with the intention of wreaking vengeance against him for having complained against the plaintiff. The domestic enquiry concerns insubordination and misbehaviour of the plaintiff during the project launch at Taj Bengal and the said domestic enquiry is totally unconnected with the alleged gender harassment and in such circumstances the domestic enquiry ought not to be interfered with by the Court. It is denied that the domestic enquiry has been initiated on the basis of any false allegation as alleged. The material, allegations contained in the petition for temporary injunction have been denied by defendant No. 1.