- (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) RESPONDENT 1 was employed by the appellant. On 30-11-2001, the appellant issued a notice of superannuation to Respondent 1 specifying that Respondent 1 would retire from his service with the appellant with effect from 28-2-2002. Prior to the date of coming into effect of the notice of superannuation, on 22-2-2002 Respondent 1 filed a suit, inter alia, for a declaration that he had in fact been born on 10-12-1947 and, therefore, he was entitled to serve till 2005 and that the notice of superannuation was liable to be quashed. The trial court granted an ex parte order by which the appellant was injuncted from giving effect to the notice of superannuation. The ex parte order was subsequently confirmed. An appeal was preferred against the interim order by the appellant. The appeal was dismissed by the first appellate court. The High Court, in civil revision, did not choose to interfere with the order of the courts below but however, directed that the suit should be disposed of expeditiously. The trial court was directed to "hear the matter on a day - to - day basis without granting any unnecessary adjournment". It also directed: "If the suit is dismissed, the defendant Company will be at liberty to adjust the amount already paid against the retiral benefits of the petitioner and if so advised in the meantime the defendant Company may also take the service of the plaintiff Opposite Party 1 since the emoluments are being paid month by month and that acceptance of service will be obviously without prejudice to the rights of the defendant Company and that acceptance of service if made will not create any equity in favour of the plaintiff employee." Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred an appeal before this Court. The issues which had been raised by the appellant and which are reiterated before us are that the suit itself was not maintainable under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, that the civil court had no jurisdiction as the dispute raised by the respondent was an "industrial dispute" within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, that this Court has repeatedly held that a dispute relating to the date of birth should not be entertained when it is raised towards the end of the period of employment and finally that by granting injunction the courts below had in fact decreed the suit in substance by rendering the notice of superannuation ineffective.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has strongly opposed each of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and has also stated that the order of the High Court should not be interfered with as the suit was being heard on a day - to - day basis.;