- (1.) The present second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was an employee in the Elgin Mills Co. Ltd. Kanpur as a confirmed clerk. He was served with charge-sheet on 15-12-70 wherein several charges were levelled against him. It was further mentioned in the charge- sheet that in case the plaintiff was found guilty, his services may be terminated on those charges. The plaintiff submitted his explanation and denied the charges. By a letter dated 6th Jan. 1971 the plaintiff was ' informed that his explanation was found unsatisfactory and an inquiry would be held in the charges levelled against him. Subsequently the inquiry was held the plaintiff was given an opportunity to file his written statement and put in his defence. A report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 22nd Feb., 1971. The Inquiry Officer further recommended that the plaintiff was not a fit person to be retained in the service of the Company. On this report the plaintiff's services were terminated by order dated 23-2-71. Thereafter the plaintiff instituted the suit out of which the present Second Appeal arises. The suit was filed making several allegations of mala fide against the management and the main grievance appears to be that the charge-sheet contained the proposed punishment as well and, therefore, the defendant had made up his mind to the termination of the service of the plaintiff after a perfunctory inquiry.
(2.) The suit was decreed by the trial court and the plaintiff was granted a declaration that the termination of service was illegal, ultra vires and the plaintiff continued to be in service of the institution. An injunction was also granted in his favour ordering the defendant not to give effect of the termination order. The defence that the inquiry was fair and in accordance with the standing order was repelled. The other defence about the jurisdiction of the civil Court to try the issue was also repelled.
(3.) The Company went up in appeal. The appellate court held that the injunction of the civil court was barred in view of the provisions of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. It further held that there was no mala fide and mere mentioning of the proposed punishment in the charge-sheet did not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff nor it affected the case of the defendant in any adverse manner. The appeal was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.;