Nirendra Krishna Mitra, J. - (1.) - None appears for the opposite party inspite of service of notice upon him. The opposite party No. 1 was an Officer Trainee of the petitioner's Company and he was posted at its Siliguri Installation at New Jalpaiguri. The Regional Manager of the petitioner company having his office at Calcutta, terminated his service allegedly without assigning any reason. The opposite party No. 1 filed a suit being O. C. Suit No. 7 of 1980 in the Court of the learned Munsif at Jalpaiguri against the petitioner and the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 praying inter alia, for a declaration that the order of termination pa4sed by the Regional Operation Manager of the petitioner-company vide letter No. P R A/1121/135, dated February 15, 1977 was wholly mala fide and without jurisdiction, for a declaration that the opposite party No. 1 was still in service under the petitioner company and also for damages. A preliminary objection was raised by the petitioner company regarding the jurisdiction of the learned Munsif to try the suit which was made the Issue No. 1. The learned Munsif by his order, dated 16th September, 1985 decided the said Issue No. 1 in favour of the opposite party No. 1 holding that the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit and was competent to make declaration in the form as prayed for by the plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 i.e. he could become successful in the suit. Against the said order the petitioner-company has moved this Court in revision along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and obtained the present Civil Order.
(2.) It was contended by Mr. Chowdhury, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-company that the learned Munsif was wrong in deciding the said Issue No. 1 in favour of the opposite party No. 1, as the relationship between the opposite party No. 1 and the petitioner Company No. 1 was that of a "master" and "servant" flowing from a personal contract and as such, such contract was unenforceable in a Civil Court in view of Section 14 read with Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
(3.) Mr. Chowdhury based his contention relying mainly on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Hasia, etc. vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. reported in A.I.R. 1981 S.C., 487, and submitted that the said case really does not stand in his way but really supports him.;