S.Rangarajan - (1.) This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi refusing to hold, as contended by the defendant/petitioner, that the suit by the plaintiff/respondent was not maintainable; as the issue (1) reads "in its present from". The brief facts which alone are sufficient for the disposal of this revision petition are that the plaintiff had been working for about ten years prior to the suit, as Assistant in the National Development Corporation, a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act. 1956. Though it is stated that the Government owns all the shares of the said Company the provisions of the Companies Act alone would apply, subject to such regulations as the Company might have framed in the matter of the service conditions of its employee.
(2.) What led to the filing of the present suit, out of which this revision petition arises, was the issue of an office memo dated 2.1.1972 on the basis of an earlier memorandum dated 1.10.1971 warning the plaintiff to be careful in future since he was found guilty of misconduct for the reasons mentioned. In reply to the memorandum dated 1.10.71 the plaintiff furnished an explanation on 8.10.1971 because the plaintiff's explanation which was considered, was not found satisfactory; he was warned to be careful in future. It is needless for the purpose of the present revision petition to even notice in any detail the averments in the memorandum dated 1.10.71 which sets out certain acts of disobedience of certain orders and his absence from duty without permission for a portion of a certain working day.
(3.) In the present suit the plaintiff, who reserved his right to take appropriate legal steps as he might be advised by his lawyer besides the claim for damages (put in Rs. 20,000.00), prayed that the two memos which, he said, had been manipulated, and amounted to adverse remarks concerning him, required to be expunged since the same were malafide (i.e.) based on ulterior motive. The objection, among others, was rightly taken by the defendant that the suit was not maintainable. It was further contended that a suit for declaration alone without any prayer for consequential relief was also bad. The following preliminary issues were framed : (1) Is the suit maintainable in its present form ? (2) Does the Court have jurisdiction to try the suit ?;