Mahitosh Majumdar, J. - (1.) This appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 22nd March, 1975 passed in Title Appeal No. 70 of 1974 by the 2nd Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Burdwan affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, 1st Court, Durgapur in Title Suit No. 14 of 1973, is at the instance of the defendant appellant, M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd.
(2.) Before I advert to the plaint case it is necessary and appropriate for me to write a few lines about the unfortunate manner by which the case of the appellant is presented before the courts below. It appears that the appellant did not produce the personal file of the plaintiff and thereby, the learned courts below were debarred to so extent from considering the nature of the order passed on the application for leave made by the plaintiff, respondent herein. The appellant being a Government undertaking company is required to act cautiously and carefully, particularly while dealing with the case his employees. Employment of an employee in the Government undertaking company now coming within reach, sweep and amplitude of State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution which is a sensitive issue. After all this affects the livelihood of an employee. It is also surprising that no effective steps were taken before final decision as regards the striking off the name of the plaintiff is arrived at. This is surely a very unfortunate chapter. It is desirable that the concerned appellant ought to have considered all the materials so far as the service record of the plaintiff vis-a-vis the connected applications for leave filed by him, but that was not done in objective manner. The consequence has and bad adverse tale on the plaintiff. That gave rise to the filing of the suit in question.
(3.) The suit is for declaration and permanent as well as mandatory injunction. The prayer as made in the plaint reads thus : (a) For a declaration that tho order dated 10.5.72 and refusal to let the plaintiff resume his duty are illegal, void, inoperative bad in law, contrary to tho provisions laid down in the Standing Orders and not binding on the plaintiff. (b) That the plaintiff should be allowed to resume his duty. (c) That the cost of the suit be allowed. (d) Any other relief or reliefs which the court deems fit and proper be allowed.;