SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1970 Supreme(Cal) 192

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
N. C. Talukdar
RANJIT GHOSH - Appellant
Versus
HINDUSTHAN STEEL LTD. - Respondent
A. F. O. O.  530  Of  1969
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 8, 1970

Advocates Appeared:
Arun Kumar Dutt, Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, NANI COOMAR CHAKRABORTY, PASHUPATI NATH CHANDRA, SUSHIL KUMAR BISWAS

The principles of natural justice and the procedure established by law must be followed in the disposal of applications for temporary injunction.

Headnote:

TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEE - VALIDITY - NATURAL JUSTICE - PROCEDURE - INJUNCTION - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW - ORDER 19, RULE 1 AND ORDER 39, RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, employed as Sales Manager at Hindusthan Steel Limited's Calcutta office, filed a suit challenging the order of transfer from Calcutta to Ranchi as Joint Chief (Administration). An application for temporary injunction was filed, and an interim order was passed restraining the defendants from giving effect to the transfer. The defendants filed an objection to the injunction, and the court rejected the application and vacated the interim order.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the procedure adopted by the learned Judge in disposing of the application for temporary injunction by relying on materials disclosed in a supplementary affidavit by the defendant after the arguments were over was in contravention of the principles of natural justice. The court also held that the order passed by the court below, rejecting the application for temporary injunction by the plaintiff, was de hors the procedure established by law.

Issues: 1. Whether the order of transfer was valid and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 2. Whether the procedure adopted by the learned Judge in disposing of the application for temporary injunction was in contravention of the principles of natural justice. 3. Whether the order passed by the court below, rejecting the application for temporary injunction by the plaintiff, was de hors the procedure established by law.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the order of transfer was not valid as it was not passed by a competent authority and was mala fide. 2. The court held that the procedure adopted by the learned Judge in disposing of the application for temporary injunction was in contravention of the principles of natural justice as the plaintiff was not given an opportunity to meet the points disclosed in the supplementary affidavit filed by the defendant. 3. The court held that the order passed by the court below, rejecting the application for temporary injunction by the plaintiff, was de hors the procedure established by law as it was not in accordance with the provisions of Order 19, Rule 1 and Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 22nd March 1969 passed by the learned Judge, and directed that the application for temporary injunction shall be reheard by the learned Judge in accordance with law and expeditiously, on a consideration of all the materials on the record.

N. C. TALUKDAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff against an order dated the 22nd March, 1969 passed by Sri A. N. Banerjee, Judge, Second Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 821 of 1968, rejecting the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction and vacating the interim order for the same.

( 2 ) THE facts leading on to the appeal can be put in a short compass. The plaintiff who was, at the material time, employed as the Sales Manager, Hindusthan Steel Limited at its Calcutta Office, instituted a suit for a declaration that the order dated the 2nd November, 1968, issued by the defendant No. 1, Hindusthan Steel Ltd. over the signature of Mr. A. E. Antony for the Chief Personnel and Manpower, transferring the plaintiff from Calcutta to the post Joint Chief (Administration) at Ranchi is illegal, mala fide and without authority of the law and also for a permanent injunction restraining the said defendant and three others from giving effect to the said order of transfer and transferring the said plaintiff from Calcutta to Ranchi. An application praying for a temporary injunction was filed on the 20th December, 1968 and on the 21st December, 1968 a Rule was issued by the court calling upon the defendant to show cause. An order for interim injunction was also passed, restraining the defendants from giving effect to the purported order of transfer in question and from proceeding any further in the matter till the disposal of the Rule or until further orders. The defendants put in appearance and filed objection to the temporary injunction. Another application was also filed by the plaintiff alleging that in violation of the order of ad interim injunction the defendants had disconnected his telephone and were not allowing him to join his post at Calcutta. The learned Judge, Second Bench, City Civil Court. Calcutta, by his order dated the 22nd March, 1969 rejected the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff and vacated the interim order granted in his favour and further rejected the petition filed by the plaintiff for proceeding against the defendants for the violation of the order of interim injunction. This order has been impugned and forms the subject-matter of the present Appeal.

( 3 ) MR. Arun Kumar Dutt, Advocate (with Messrs. Sushil Kumar Biswas and Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee, Advocates) appearing in support of the Appeal, on behalf of the appellant, made a threefold submission. The first contention of Mr. Dutt is that the purported order of transfer is but a mere intimation to the plaintiff to the effect that a proper order would be made subsequently and is not a valid order of transfer passed by a competent authority. Mr. Dutt referred in this context to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case between the Hindusthan Brown Boveri, Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1968) 1 Lab LJ 571 (SC) wherein Mr. Justice J. M. Shelat delivering the judgment held, in the facts of that case, that the power to pass an order of dismissal and of the lesser punishment in lieu of dismissal are both vested in the company and not in any of its other authorities and that in the absence of a delegation it is the company and not the Works Manager who can exercise the power of punishment under the standing orders 23 and 27. Mr. Dutt next contended that the order impugned is vindictive and mala fide and as such is not maintainable in law. The third and last submission of Mr. Dutt is that the procedure adopted by the learned Judge in disposing of the application for temporary injunction by relying on materials disclosed in a supplementary affidavit by the defendant after the arguments were over on the 15th March, 1969 has been in contravention of the principles of natural justice. Several decisions were cited by him on the aforesaid points.

( 4 ) MR. Nani Coomar Chakraborty, Advocate (with Mr. Pasupati Nath Chun-der. Advocate) appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 to 3, joined issue. Mr. C






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top