Poonam Srivastav, J. - (1.) -Heard Sri S. M. Ali, Advocate, holding brief of Sri R. K. Nigam, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Mohd. Isa Khan, counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE instant second appeal arises out of the judgment dated 3.8.1989 and decree dated 17.8.1989, passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Jhansi, allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and order of injunction granted by IVth Additional Munsif, Jhansi, in Original Suit No. 656 of 1985. The instant appeal was filed by 7 plaintiffs/appellants. The plaintiff/appellant Nos. 1 and 4 Sheikh Rahim and Murari Lal are dead. The appeal stands abated against the plaintiff/appellant Nos. 1 and 4. The appeal is being heard in respect of the appellant Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has stated in memo of the appeal that ground Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8 are substantial questions of law, which arise for consideration in the instant appeal. The substantial question of law Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8 are quoted hereinbelow : "1. Whether the mere fact that the authority concerned had forbidden the engagement of daily wages cannot deprive the plaintiff appellants of the benefit of their continuous service of over 240 days in each year? 2. Whether the fact that the benefit of 240 days of service is prescribed under the industrial law does not oust the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts and make the industrial law applicable to the dispute in hand? 3. Whether under the circumstances the provisions of Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act do not bar the maintainability of the present suit? 4. Whether the compliance of mandatory provision of law envisaged by Sections 25A, 25 (f) and 25 (6) of the Industrial Disputes Act having not been made the present suit for injunction restraining removal of the plaintiffs/appellants from their service had been rightly decreed by the trial court?"
(3.) FACTS giving rise to the dispute are that Ashok Kumar and 12 others including the appellants filed a suit in the Court of Munsif, Jhansi, against Cantonment Board claiming relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents to retrench the plaintiffs from Cantonment Board where they were discharging duties as labourers and peons since the last two years. The plaintiff's allegation according to the plaint is that their appointment was made for performing duties relating to realization of toll tax and octroi at the barrier of the Cantonment Board. The plaintiffs claimed that they had all along discharged their duties diligently and honestly and to the satisfaction of the employer. Their work such as sanitation, carrying the job of scavenger etc. was also taken from them though it was not within the scope of their specific duties. The plaintiffs/appellants raised verbal objection which resulted in their retrenchment without following procedure laid down under Sections 24F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was also contended that provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India are grossly violated and, therefore, relief of injunction was an instance of urgency. Consequently, the suit was instituted without notice as required under Section 273 of the Cantonment Board Act. The plaintiffs/appellants prayed for restraining the defendants from passing any order of retrenchment in violation of law.;