DHARMADHIKARI S.C., J.: - This chamber summons has been taken out by the original defendant for the following reliefs:-

(a) This Honble Court be pleased to declare that the award/judgment dated 6th August, 2004, passed by the Labour Tribunal, Hong Kong, is not conclusive as to any matter therein and that the same has been passed in violation of the provisions of section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;

(b) This Honble Court be pleased to pass an appropriate order of permanent injunction, or such similar order/s or direction/s as this Honble Court may deem fit, to restrain the plaintiff from acting upon, or taking any steps in pursuance or furtherance of the award/ judgment dated 6th August, 2004, passed by the Labour Tribunal, Hong Kong;

(c) This Honble Court be pleased to withdraw the warrants of attachment:(i) On the ownership premises of the defendant situate at Cecil Court, 4th Floor, 26, Mahakavi Bhushan Marg, Mumbai 400 039;

(ii) On moveable property of the defendant lying and situated in the defendants premises at Engineering Centre, 5th floor, 9, Mathew Road, Opera House, Mumbai 400 004 and at Cecil Court, 4th floor, 26, Mahakavi Bhushan Marg, Mumbai 400 039; and (iii) Issued to the extent of Rs. 19,26,008.16 ps. on the Bank account No. 01000006447 standing in the name of the defendant with the State Bank of India, Opera House, Branch Mumbai 400 004 and Bank Account No. 5728 and Account No. 16716 standing in the name of the defendant with the Bank of Baroda, Opera House, Branch Mumbai."

2. The contention of the Assistant Director of the defendant on affidavit is that the award/judgment dated 6th August, 2004 is not a decree of a superior Court in a reciprocating territory. Further, it is not conclusive as to any matter and it is, therefore, not executable and enforceable.

3. The above pleas have been elaborated in the affidavit in support and during oral submissions. Apart from the fact that certain sub-clauses of section 13 of the C.P.C. are also invoked, the nature of the challenge remains the same.

4. The facts leading to the f1ling of this chamber summons and about which there is no dispute between parties can be set out now.

The plaintiff was appointed as Joint Director on 12th June, 1989. On 10th February, 1990 plaintiff was confirmed in service. On 22nd July, 1994 plaintiff was deputed to set up and open defendants representative office in HongKong. Terms of exchange were fixed at INR 1 = HK $ 0.76. On 26th August, 1994 plaintiff requested defendant to send an "appointment letter" bearing the same date as his deputation letter dated 22nd July, 1994 specifying his designation and emoluments in HongKong dollars, to enable him to obtain a work visa. Defendant on 27th August, 1994 sent an appointment letter dated 22nd July, 1994 to plaintiff to enable him to obtain work visa. On 29th August, 1994 plaintiff requested to send another appointment letter as per the draft suggested by the Solicitors in HongKong. Plaintiff further requested that the date of appointment letter should be as recent as possible and not as mentioned in his earlier fax. On 2nd September, 1994 defendant sent appointment letter as requested by plaintiff dated 31st August, 1994. On 22nd May, 2002 plaintiff requested for 60 days encashment of earned leave. On 24th May, 2002 defendant permitted plaintiff to encash 60 days earned leave. On 28th June, 2002 defendant informed plaintiff that Rs. 59,807/- be credited to his savings bank account in State Bank of India, Opera House branch towards encashment of60 days earned leave. On 10th July, 2002 plaintiff tenders his resignation to defendant in Mumbai w.e.f. 1st November, 2002. On 16th July, 2002, plaintiffs resignation was accepted w.e.f. 15th August, 2002. On 31st July, 2002 defendant closes 24

its office in HongKongw.e.f. 31st July, 2002 and informs Registrar of Companies, HongKong. On 15th August, 2002 plaintiffs resignation came into effect. On 16th August, 2002 plaintiff addressed a letter to th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document