- (1.) We have heard the counsel for the writ petitioner at length. By an order dated 5th of September, 2007 the learned Single Judge has observed as follows: Affidavit of service filed in Court be kept with the records. Let affidavit -in -opposition be filed by 28th September, 2007. Reply, if any, by 5th October, 2007. Thereafter, parties are at liberty to mention for hearing upon notice. Since it has been alleged that the private responde4nt is obstructing in the free ingress and egress from the shop in question, let there be an interim order directing the Officer -in -Charge, Shyampukur Police Station, Kolkata, the respondent No. 2 to remove any obstruction in front of the shop and shall see that the respondent No. 5, his men and agents do not make any forcible entry and create obstruction in front of the shop thereby preventing the customers and visitors. Since it has been stated that the respondent No. 5 has been dismissed from service, the respondent No. 2 shall ensure that the respondent No. 5 do not enter into the said shop till the outcome of the proceeding before the appropriate forum. In the event any complaint is lodged by the petitioners with the respondent No. 2, the said respondent shall take immediate steps. It is made clear that the appropriate forum is free to go ahead with the dispute without being influenced by this order. All parties concerned are to act on a xerox signed copy of this order on the usual undertakings.
(2.) Against the aforesaid order the workman has filed the present appeal. When the matter came up for hearing for the first time, the Division Bench has granted leave. Thereafter operation of the order of the learned Single Judge has been stayed with the observation that at the same time the appellant is restrained from entering into the shop of the writ petitioner (the employer) till the disposal of the appeal.
(3.) We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. It is not disputed before us that the services of the appellant had been terminated by the writ petitioner (the employer). Since there is a dispute between the parties the matter is pending before the Conciliation Officer. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the enquiry as well as the disciplinary proceedings were bogus, sham and in breach of rules of natural justice. On the other hand it is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner (the employer) that the entire disciplinary proceedings have been conducted in accordance with law. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it would be wholly inappropriate for this Court to express any opinion on the merits of the claim put forward by the parties. We are also of the opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the order passed by the Division Bench at the interim stage are perfectly in consonance with the provisions of law. The learned Single Judge has merely directed that the Police shall take steps in accordance with law. The Appeal Court in the interim order has only directed the appellant (the workman) not to enter the premises of the writ petitioner (the employer) during the pendency of the appeal.;