( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the order passed by the City Civil Court Ahmedabad granting an interim injunction against the appellant restraining him from serving or engaging himself directly or indirectly for or under any other person firm or company in India as a senior assistant in the spinning department or in any other similar capacity and from divulging any of the secrets process or information received by him in respect of his employment till the hearing and final disposal of the suit.

( 2 ) THE following facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff-company is a joint stock company and is running a textile mill in Ahmedabad. By an agreement dated March 22 1961 made between the plaintiff-company and the defendant it was agreed that the defendant who is a qualified technician and a diploma holder in textile technology should serve the company for a period of five years commencing from May 1 1961 on the terms and conditions contained therein. The defendant worked in the plaintiff-company as a senior assistant in the spinning department until April 17 1962 on which day he sent a letter to the plaintiff-company resigning his employment. On May 4 1962 the plaintiff company replied that his resignation was not accepted and thereupon on May 13 1962 the defendant wrote a letter complaining that he was not given good treatment and therefore had left service. On May 22 1962 the defendant wrote that he was prepared to work for the plaintiff-company provided assurance of good treatment was given to him. On May 24 1962 the plaintiff company wrote to the defendant asking him to resume service and on June 1 1962 the company again wrote to him offering to make an inquiry into any complaint as to improper treatment that the defendant might have had to suffer. The defendant gave no reply to the aforesaid letter and on June 7 1962 he accepted an employment as an assistant spinning master in the Vishnu Laxmi Cotton Mills at Sholapur on a salary higher than the one he was getting in the plaintiffcompany. On July 2 1962 the plaintiff-Company filed the present suit and in a Notice of Motion taken out by the plaintiff-company the learned trial Judge passed an interim order which is challenged in this appeal. It is the case of the plaintiff-company that the defendant was engaged by it as he had a specialised training for its spinning department and that there is considerable dearth of such trained technicians and such trained persons are therefore not easily available.

( 3 ) MR. Daru for the appellant has raised five contentions:- (1) that the Court would not grant an injunction if the result of it would be to enforce specific performance of the positive contract a thing which the Court never does in the matter of personal service (2) that the Court would refuse injunction if the effect of it would be to reduce the employee either to idleness or starvation (3) that the grant of an injunction being discretionary and such discretion being one which is to be exercised according to well settled principles the Court would refuse to exercise it if the terms of the agreement are unreasonable or unnecessarily wide (4) that the Court would refuse to exercise its discretion if the result would leave the employee the alternative either to go back to the employer i. e. indirectly enforcing specific performance of the positive covenant or face idleness and starvation and (5) that the Court would also refuse to exercise its discretion if its effect would be to prevent the employee from following an occupation of his choice. The exercise of discretion in such a case would be an unreasonable restriction and contrary to Article 19 (1) (g) and clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution.

( 4 ) NOW the relief by way of injunction is governed in India by statute. Under sec. 52 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 the grant of an injunction is placed in the discretion of the Court a discretion to be exercised of course as the discretion of Courts always is.