Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
S. K. Hazra
HIRENDRA NATH BAKSHI - Appellant
Versus
RAM JAUHAR - Respondent
Suit 2890 Of 1965
Decided On : JUNE 15, 1972
INJUNCTION - CONTRACT OF PERSONAL SERVICE - SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA STAFF REGULATIONS, 1960 - REGULATION 39 (1G) - SHOW CAUSE NOTICE - ENQUIRY REPORT - INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (L.I.C.), was served with a show cause notice and an enquiry report alleging misappropriation of funds. The petitioner filed a suit seeking to set aside the order of suspension and the enquiry proceedings, and also sought an injunction restraining the L.I.C. from proceeding with the enquiry. The petitioner also filed an interlocutory application seeking an injunction restraining the L.I.C. from giving effect to the show cause notice and the enquiry report.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to an injunction restraining the L.I.C. from giving effect to the show cause notice and the enquiry report. The court found that the petitioner had not established any special circumstances that would warrant the grant of an injunction. The court also held that the petitioner's case did not fall within any of the well-recognized exceptions to the general rule that injunctions will not be granted to enforce contracts of personal service.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to an injunction restraining the L.I.C. from giving effect to the show cause notice and the enquiry report? 2. Whether the petitioner's case fell within any of the well-recognized exceptions to the general rule that injunctions will not be granted to enforce contracts of personal service?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to an injunction restraining the L.I.C. from giving effect to the show cause notice and the enquiry report because the petitioner had not established any special circumstances that would warrant the grant of an injunction. The court also held that the petitioner's case did not fall within any of the well-recognized exceptions to the general rule that injunctions will not be granted to enforce contracts of personal service. 2. The court found that the petitioner's case did not fall within any of the well-recognized exceptions to the general rule that injunctions will not be granted to enforce contracts of personal service because the petitioner was not a public servant, the petitioner was not a worker who had been dismissed under the industrial law, and the L.I.C. was not a statutory body that had acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed by a statute.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's interlocutory application.
( 1 ) THIS is an interlocutory application for injunction restraining the respondent No. 2, Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinatfer called the L. I. C.) and its servants, agents, representatives, assigns, employees or otherwise from giving effect to or implementing the notice dated April 1 1972 and the enquiry report dated April 19, 1971 in any manner whatsoever pending the disposal of this suit. The notice dated April 1, 1972 is a show cause notice. By this notice the L. I. C. is calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from the service of the L. I. C.
( 2 ) THIS show cause notice is given on the findings of the report of the enquiry officer dated April 9, 1971 that the petitioner is guilty of getting a cheque dated November 11, 1966 drawn by the L. I. C. in favour of the respondent No. 1 Shreeram Jauhar for Rs. 1,323. 10 encashed through his personal bank account and misappropriating the proceeds of the cheque. On this finding, of the enquiry officer, the L. I. C. proposed to dismiss the petitioner from service in terms of Regulation 39 (1g) of the L. I. C. Staff Regulations, 1960. The petitioner wants that this Court should issue an order of injunction restraining the L. I. C. from dismissing the petitioner. This prayer of the petitioner, prima facie, means that the petitioner wants by an ad interim order to enforce specifically that his employer should not dismiss him but he should be allowed to continue in service. In other words, the petitioner by an ad interim order wants specific performance of his contract of employment Prima facie, this could not be done but the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dipankar Ghose relied upon a very recent decision of Lord Denning. M. R. reported in 1971 (3) WLR page 995 = (1971) 3 All ER (Hill v. C. A. Parson and Co.) page 1345 and submitted that very recently the Court of Appeal in England presided over by Lord Denning by a majority judgment has Issued an injunction restraining the employer from treating a notice of termination of service as having determined the plaintiff's employment and thus have indirectly granted specific performance of a contract of personal service by interlocutory injunction. It was submitted that I should follow the principles of this case and similarly grant him injunction,
( 3 ) THE question is whether I should issue an order of interim injunction in this case as prayed.
( 4 ) THIS application is contested by Mr. Subrata Roy Chowdhury and Mr. J. N, Ghose on behalf of the L. I. C. and Mr. J. N. Roy on behalf of the respondent Shreeram Jauhar and a number of decisions have been cited by both parties. For the purpose of deciding the various points advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent it is necessary to state certain facts which are set out hereunder :
( 5 ) THE petitioner Hirendra Nath Bakshi joined New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on October 31, 1955. On September 1, 1956, the petitioner's service was transferred to L. I. C.
( 6 ) ON October 11, 1966 a cheque for Rs. 2,481. 10 was deposited by defendant No. 1 Sreeram Jauhar with L. I. C. Out of the said sum. a sum of Rs. 1,158/-was adjusted against his premium in respect of Policy No. 2313237, remaining a balance of Rs. 1,323. 10 as unadjusted sum.
( 7 ) ON November 1. 1966 a cheque for the sum of Rs. 1,323. 10 was drawn by the L. I. C. by way of refund and the same was taken by the petitioner who was at the relevant time acting as Assistant Branch Manager. City Branch II for payment of defendant No. 1. The allegation against the petitioner is that he encashed the said sum in his own account, and did not pay the same to the defendant No. 1 Sreeram Jauhar. On October 31, 1968 at the time of internal audit it transpired that the signature of defendant No. 1 on the back of the cheque and the endorsement differed with that appearing on the policy.
( 8 ) ON January 20, 1969 and on January 28, 1969, two letters were given by and on beh
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
