N.C.Talukdar, J. - (1.) This Rule is at the instance of the Plaintiff-Petitioner and is directed against on order dated the 5th October, 1972 passed by Shri D. Dutta Gupta, Munsif, 5th Court, Alipore, District 24-Parganas rejecting the petitioner's prayer for ad interim injunction at that stage in conection with his application for injunction filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil P. C. in Title Suit No. 195 of 1972.
(2.) The facts leading on to the Rule are rather chequered but can be put in a short compass. The case of the Plaintiff/Petitioner inter alia is that he was appointed as an Assistant Store Keeper in the Engineering Department under the Electric Lamp Manufacturers (India) Pvt. LtD.With effect from the 1st December, 1967 on terms enumerated in the letter of appointment dated the 25th November, 1967; that following certain disputes between the employer and the employees, a charter of demand was submitted leading on to an appeal filed by the present petitioner before the authorities; that during the pendency of the said appeal, the defendant No. 3, S. K. Biswas, Chief Engineer, Electric Lamp Manufacturers (India) Pvt. Ltd. issued a letter dated the 27th March, 1972 stating, inter alia, that the plaintiff was transferred from the Engineering Department to the Packing Department (Lamp Factory) with effect from the 20th March, 1972 and was directed to report to the Factory Manager immediately on receipt of the letter; and that being aggrieved by the said order dated the 27th March, 1972, as being mala fide, illegal and against the principles of natural justice, the Plaintiff-Petitioner filed Title Suit No. 105 of 1972 on the 30th March, 1972 in the Court of the learned Munsif, 5th Court, Alipore, District 24-Parganas praying, inter alia, for a declaration that the order dated the 27th March. 1972 is illegal, mala fide and not binding upon the plaintiff. An application for injunction was also moved before the learned Munsif on the 30th March, 1972 praying for a stay of operation of the order dated 27-3-1972 but the learned Munsif rejected the same. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner moved a revisional application before this Court and obtained a Rule as also an interim order. The Rule ultimately was heard by Mr. Justice Chittatosh Mookerjee who by his order dated the 6th June, 1972 disposed of the Rule with certain directions that the order was not to take effect for two weeks. This constitutes the first chapter. On remand the learned Munsif heard the matter in the presence of both the parties on the 17th June, 1972 and ultimately dismissed the application for temporary injunction by his order dated the 21st June, 1972. A revisional application followed against the same and Mr. Justice A. P. Das by his order dated the 27th March, 1972 discharged the Rule being C. R. 2003 of 1972 and further rejected the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for staying the operation of the order for 15 days. This closed the second chapter. Subsequent thereto, a notice dated the 23rd June, 1972 was served on the petitioner calling upon him to show cause to the charges levelled against him as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him and pending the enquiry he was suspended from service with immediate effect till the enquiry and the final orders in the matter. On the 5th October, 1972 the Plaintiff-Petitioner filed an application under Order 39. Rules 1 and 2. Code of Civil Procedure supported by an affidavit for an order of injunction restraining the Defendant from giving effect to the order of suspension dated 23rd June, 1972 and to allow the pelitioner to work at his old post. A prayer was also made for an ad interim injunction to the said effect till the disposal of the suit. The defendants having prayed for time to file their objection the learned lawyer for the Plaintiff-Petitioner prayed for an order for interim injunction in the meanwhile. The learned Munsif by his order dated the 5th October, 1972 refused the prayer for interim injunction at that stage and called upon the Defendants to file objections by the 16th November, 1972. The Plaintiff-Petitioner moved against the said order and obtained the present Rule along with an interim order as prayed for.
(3.) Mr. B. K. Roychoudhury, Advocate (with Mr. Narayandas Das, Advocate), appearing in support of the Rule, made a three-fold submission. He contended firstly that the learned Munsif has acted illegally and With material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction on the question of irreparable injury; and secondly, that he further erred in his approach to the question of balance of convenience of the parties, prejudicing thereby the Plaintiff-Petitioner. Tbe third and last submission of Mr. Roychoudhury is that injunction is an equitable relief and the learned Munsif should have allowed the prayer for ad interim injunction on the grounds of justice in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner, who is a harassed employee in pursuit of justice and who cannot be suspended by the defendants-opposite parties, who have even no rules and regulations of service in the absence whereof their action has been arbitrary. In any event, without the order for interim injunction, the substantive application for injunction filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil P. C. would be infructuous.;