DEBANGSU BASAK - (1.) By this application, the defendant Nos.4 and 17 seek revocation of leave granted under clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1965 and under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the suit. Such defendants also seek the dismissal of the suit and the plaint.
(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the defendant Nos.4 and 17 submits that, the defendant No.4 is a trade union, registered under the provision of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The defendant No.17 is an office-bearer of the defendant No.4. He submits that, some of the natural persons who are the party defendants in the suit are employees of the bank. They were engaged by the banks for the purpose of maintaining Automated Teller Machine (ATM) in the city of Kolkata. The banks terminated the services of such employees. On the termination of such services, industrial disputes within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 arose. There are proceedings pending before the appropriate forum under the Act of 1947 so far as the industrial disputes are concerned.
(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the defendant Nos.4 and 17 refers to Section 37 of the Act of 1947 and submits that, by reasons thereof, the claim made in the instant suit is barred. He submits that no suit lies against the defendant Nos.14 and 17 in view of the provision of Section 37 of the Act of 1947. He refers to Section 26 onwards of the Act of 1947 and submits that, in the instances, where an employee can be proceeded against under the Act of 1947 are provided. The suit is, therefore, not maintainable. In support of his contention that, the suit is not maintainable, learned Advocate appearing for the defendant Nos.4 and 17 relies upon (2010) 6 SCC 697 (R.S.R.T.C. and ORS. Versus DEEN DAYAL SHARMA).;