JUDGMENT - LODHA R.M., J.:-This judgment will dispose of Letters Patent Appeal No. 179 of 1993, writ petition No. 4600 of 1993 and Writ Petition No. 1961 of 1993.

2. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the parties as the employer and employee. In Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant is the employee and the respondents are employer while in Writ Petition Nos. 4600 of 1993 and 1961 of 1993, the petitioners are employer and the respondent is the employee.

3. Insofar as Writ Petition No. 1961 of 1993 is concerned, the learned Counsel for the employer fairly submitted that the said writ petition arises out of the suit filed by the employee seeking injunction against the employer from obstructing or preventing from performing his duties as Assistance Ocitor Superintendent and now since the employee has superannuated, the suit itself had become infructuous and so also the writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

4. As regards the Letters Patent Appeal, we may observe that the said Letters Patent Appeal arises out of order dated 11-11-1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4600 of 1993, whereby the learned Single Judge admitted the writ petition and granted interim stay by staying the operation of impugned order dated 4-1-1993 passed by the trial Court in R.C.S. No. 1629 of 1992. As we have heard Writ Petition No. 4600 of 1993 itself, the fate of the Letters Patent Appeal would be dependent on the order which we pass in the Writ Petition No. 4600 of 1993.

5. Adverting now to the Writ Petition No. 4600 of 1993, we may first notice few relevant facts.

The employee is working with the employer as Assistant Octroi Superintendent since 4-11-1988. The Municipal Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation, suspended the employee vide order dated 31-1-1989 in contemplation of disciplinary enquiry against him in relation to the inspection of two vehicles on 23-1-1989. The employee challenged the suspension order by Regular Civil Suit No. 226 of 1989 and also prayed for temporary injunction therein. The employer appeared in the suit and contested the application for temporary injunction. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide order dated 16-2-1989 restrained the employer from preventing the employee from performing his duties until disposal of the suit. The employer challenged the order of the trial Court dated 16-2-1989 in miscellaneous appeal which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Pune on 29-4-1992. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, the employer preferred Writ Petition No. 1961 of 1993, which is being disposed of today by this common judgment. But admittedly, as noted by us above, the said petition has become infructuous. It appears that in the meanwhile, on 8-3-1990, the employer appointed Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges against the employer and the Enquiry Officer completed the enquiry and submitted his report on 27-6-1991. The Municipal Commissioner issued show-cause notice on 29-7-1992 to the employee for passing an order of punishment of dismissal. The employee challenged the said show-cause notice by filing R.C.S. No. 1629 of 1992. In the said suit, the employee also prayed for temporary injunction for restraining the employer from giving effect to the show-cause notice dated 29-7-1992. The application for temporary injunction was contested by the employer. The trial Court by order dated 4-1-1993 allowed the application made by the employee for grant of temporary injunction and restrained from acting upon show-cause notice dated 29-7-1992. It is this order dated 4-1-1993 passed by the trial Court on the application of temporary injunction which has been challenged by the employer in Writ Petition No. 4600 of 1993. Ordinarily, this Court does not invoke its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India in respect of an order passed by the Civil Court which is appealable under Code of Civil Procedure and that is what we o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document