S SAHA Vs. SUDHIR KUMAR GOSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order impugned dated 8th February, 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 1st Court at Howrah in Title Suit No.108 of 2012 rejecting the application filed by the opposite party/plaintiff to dismiss the suit under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure is under challenge in this revisional application.

(2.) Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/ defendant submits that the plaintiff/opposite party instituted the suit with averments that the plaintiff is a workman appointed by the defendant- company vide a letter dated 20th June, 2007 and the plaintiff was appointed as Spinning Supervisor (Textile Division) and he was also made a member of P.F. and E.S.I. and the defendant allotted the schedule-mentioned quarter to the plaintiff through one certificate dated 10th June, 2009 issued by Commercial Manager of defendant-company. Further averment was made that in the 1st week of October, 2009 the plaintiff could not join in duty due to personal inconvenience and on and from 9th October, 2009 when plaintiff went to resume his duty he was not allowed to resume his duty by the management of the defendant-company and the plaintiff is still now a workman of defendant-company. Defendant-company did not served any notice for termination of service to the plaintiff, not yet disburse the financial benefit to the plaintiff including salary, P.F. and other benefits.

(3.) Plaintiff also made his protest to the management of the defendantcompany through personal visit to Technical Manager, Commercial Manager, President of defendant-company but all event went in vain. According to the plaintiff, act of defendant-company is highly illegal and unauthorised and they cannot refuse employment to any permanent workman without valid ground and without serving any notice to show cause.