Tarun Chatterjee, J. - (1.) M/s Mahindra Engineering & Chemical Products Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) is the appellant before us. The plaintiff/respondent Ashoke Kumar Ghosh, was appointed as Deputy Sales Manager of the Company by entering into a contract of service. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff respondent, Ashoke Kumar Ghosh against the Company for the following reliefs : (a) A decree declaring that the plaintiff has been illegally pressurised by the defendants to make over charge of his present post of Dy. Sales Manager on 20.9.94 in violation of the terms and conditions of his appointment letter and the plaintiff is still in his present employment at the Calcutta office of the defendants no.l and entitled to monthly salary and other benefits which the plaintiff enjoyed so long; (b) ....a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant no.l from terminating the service of the plaintiff from his present post of Dy. Sales Manager at Calcutta office of the defendant no. 1.
(2.) This suit was filed on 30th of September, 1994 on the same date an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the plaintiff respondent. The said application for temporary injunction was moved for an ex-parte order of injunction restraining the company-appellant from terminating the service of the plaintiff-respondent from his present employment as Deputy Sales Manager till the disposal of the application for temporary injunction. By the order under challenge in this appeal, the learned Judge, 5th Bench, of the City Civil Court at Calcutta granted an ex-parte ad-interim order of injunction restraining the Company-appellant from terminating the service of the plaintiff respondent as Deputy Sales Manager, till disposal of the application for temporary injunction. Feeling aggrieved by the grant of ad interim order of injunction, the Company-appellant has come up to this Court in appeal.
(3.) Before us two questions are raised on behalf of the Company appellant against the aforesaid order under challenge in this appeal, the first ground of attack is that before granting ex-parte injunction, the learned Judge ought to have recorded the reasons that the object of granting injunction would be defeated by delay if such ex-parte injunction is not granted in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, the second ground is that in view of the admitted fact that the relationship between the plaintiff. and the company was that of an employee and employee of personal nature, the suit itself with the prayer for injunction cannot he said to be maintainable in view of sections 14 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act, and therefore, the question of grant of injunction in a suit of this nature cannot arise at all.;