P.N.Mookerjee, J. - (1.) This Rule raises a short but interesting question. It is directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Alipore, refusing the petitioners prayer for rejecting the plaint on the ground that it discloses no cause of action.
(2.) The suit which was filed by the opposite party against the present petitioners was one for mandatory injunction and damages. The suit was instituted on June 27, 1955, and upon the following allegations, inter alia,: (i) That the opposite party was an old employee holding a responsible post under Mackintosh Burn Ltd. of which the petitioners were Directors; (ii) That the opposite party was the Secretary of the (Workers') Union and, on account of his efforts to improve the lot of the workers, he had incurred the displeasure of his employers; and (iii) That, actuated by malice, the petitioners, on false pretext, issued a warning order to the opposite party, threatening him with dismissal; and they also had it circulated amongst the opposite party's co-workers through their agents and lowered him in their estimation and injured his reputation.
(3.) The warning order was in the following terms: "The Directors take a very serious view of the whole affair and you are hereby warned that any incident of the type in future will lead to your dismissal".;