S.K. Mukherjee, J. - (1.) These four applications are at the instance of four employees of the Westing House Saxby Farmer Limited, which has been impleaded as respondent no. 1 in all the applications. The nature of the subject matter of dispute also in all the four applications is the same and as such common questions of law and facts are involved in all the applications.
(2.) The subject matter of challenge in each case is a charge sheet-cum-order of interim suspension dated 20 11.1984. The said applications being moved on 4th December, 1984, interim order was issued and all these applications were directed to be heard analogously.
(3.) Notices of the applications having been served on the employer Company and its officers, who were impleaded as respondents, the extension of the interim order had been contested on their behalf. Although the interim order was clarified, inter alia, by permitting the respondents to proceed with the disciplinary proceeding and restraining them only from passing the final orders. Mr. Choudhury, appearing on behalf of the respondents, did not avail of the benefits of the said clarification but made a prayer for disposal of the writ applications on merit. Mr. Moitra, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, appreciating that the points raised regarding the legality and validity of the chargesheets by the petitioners could not be properly considered and decided upon without factual materials being brought on record, expressed his inclination to make submissions relating to the validity and propriety of the interim suspension of the petitioners imposed through such chargesheets and both Mr. Chowdhury and Mr. Moitra invited me to dispose of the writ applications deciding the merits of such submissions relating to interim suspension and reserving their respective rights with regard to the remaining portions of the chargesheets or consequential proceedings for future occasion as and when the same would arise. Accordingly, all the applications for writ with the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, were heard as contested applications. It may be noted, at this stage, that, apart from the employer company and its officers, there were two state respondents, who have appeared through Mr. Kandari, Advocate.;