D.C.CHAKRAVORTI,J. - (1.) This Rule is directed against Order No. 26 dated August 28, 1978 made by the learned Munsif, 4th Court at Sealdah, while disposing of one preliminary issue, namely, whether the suit was maintainable.
(2.) THE learned Munsif found that the suit was maintainable and the defendant on being aggrieved by the impugned order made the present application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts relevant, for our purposes may briefly be stated as follows: The plaintiff -opposite party was an employee of the defendant -petitioner, namely, the Titagarh Jute Factory Co. Ltd. No. 1 Mill, (hereinafter referred to as the factory). The factory by a letter dated June 30, 1977 intimated the plaintiff that he would be retiring on Aug. 1, 1977, on completion of the age of superannuation which was 58 years as per Clause 14(c) of the Standing Orders. The plaintiff wrote to the factory in reply to the said letter stating that his date of birth was August 20, 1922 and that accordingly on August 1, 1977 he would not be attaining the stipulated age of superannuation as per standing orders. When the factory refused to accept the aforesaid contention of the plaintiff, the latter filed the present suit challenging the validity of the notice contained in the said letter dated June 30, 1977, on the ground that the plaintiff would not attain the age of 58 years as alleged, for, he was born on August 20, 1922. The plaintiff also asserted that the said order contained in the notice referred to above was not supported by any record with respect to the plaintiff's date of birth, that the order violated the principles of natural justice as the plaintiff was not given an opportunity of being heard before the order was made, that the standing order would not apply to him as he joined the service sometime in 1943 before the passing of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and that the said notice was ineffective as it did not give the plaintiff one clear month's notice, for, the notice was served on him on July 2, 1977.
(3.) THE factory's defence was that the civil Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit which involved an industrial dispute and the Court's jurisdiction was accordingly barred by implication according to the provisions of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the Court could not grant the relief asked for in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.;