Anil Kumar Sen, J. - (1.) In an appeal preferred by the defendant against an order of injunction, two applications came up for hearing before us. One of the applications is for stay of the order of injunction and had been filed by the defendant-appellant. The other application is by the plaintiff respondent for vacating the ad interim stay earlier granted by this Court. Since disposal of the applications would involve consideration of issues involved in the appeal itself, by consent of the parties, we have heard out the appeal itself after dispensing with all other formalities.
(2.) The plaintiff respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant). The defendant is a Firm. On November 6, 1982 the defendant served a notice upon the plaintiff intimating him that due to shortage/non-availability of levy cement, the volume of work of the company has fallen considerably and in the result, the management had been unable to provide employment to all the employees, including the Sales Staff of the Company. Therefore, on the request of the management, some of the employees had resigned voluntarily and had received their final dues. The plaintiff, who was an employee in the Sales branch, was asked to appreciate the Company's position and was requested to collect his final dues, obviously on voluntary resignation within November 15, 1982. The notice went on to say further that failing which "the management will be compelled to retrench you on the ground of surplus to the requirement of the company in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947".
(3.) In December 1982, the plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 2314 of 1982 against the defendant challenging the above notice on the allegation that the plaintiff had been in the employment of the defendant since June 1972 as the permanent employee but the defendant mala fide and illegally served the above notice on baseless grounds which had been duty controverted by the plaintiff in his reply dated November 13, 1982 and since November 27, 1982 the plaintiff was not being allowed to sign the Attendance Register and that such action on the part of the defendant was violative of the service condition to which the employer is bound by law. On these allegations, the plaintiff sought for (a) a declaration that the notice dated November 6, 1982 and the subsequent refusal by the defendant to the plaintiff to sign the Attendance Register since November 27, 1982 were arbitrary, mala fide, illegal and invalid (b) for a further declaration that the plaintiff should be deemed to have been continuing in service, (c) for injunction and other ancillary reliefs.;