Allahbad High Court
O.P.TRIVEDI
V.D. Tripathi - Appellant
Versus
Vijai Shanker Dwivedi - Respondent
Decided On : 03/17/1975
INJUNCTION - TEMPORARY INJUNCTION - ORDER 39 RULE 2 CPC - PRAYER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION - SCOPE OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - SECTION 14(1)(A) - REGULATION 39 OF THE REGULATIONS FRAMED UNDER THE INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT - EMPLOYEE CANNOT BE FOISTED ON AN UNWILLING EMPLOYER - PROPER REMEDY IS TO SUE FOR COMPENSATION OR DAMAGES.
Fact of the Case:
Vijai Shanker Dwivedi, the Head Master of a High School, was promoted to the post of Principal when the school was upgraded to an Intermediate College. However, the Managing Committee did not take any further steps to enforce the resolution promoting him and threatened to suspend him. Vijai Shanker Dwivedi filed a suit seeking a mandatory injunction directing the Managing Committee to carry out the resolution and a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his day-to-day working as Principal. During the pendency of the suit, he also filed an application under Order 39, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for a temporary injunction restraining the Managing Committee from taking any steps for his suspension.
Finding of the Court:
The Civil Judge granted the temporary injunction, but the High Court set it aside on revision.
Issues: 1. Whether a temporary injunction can be granted in terms different from the prayer for permanent injunction in the suit? 2. Whether an employee can be foisted on an unwilling employer? 3. Whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting an injunction to restrain the employer from taking disciplinary action against the employee?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 2 of the CPC can only be granted on the terms of the prayer for permanent injunction in the suit and not in different terms. 2. An employee cannot be foisted on an unwilling employer. The proper remedy of the employee is to sue for compensation or damages for being forced out of office. 3. In balancing the convenience of parties, the court should consider whether the employee can be adequately compensated in damages if the injunction is not granted and whether the employer has the right to take disciplinary action against the employee.
Final Decision: The revision was allowed, the judgments and order of the Civil Judge were set aside, and the application for temporary injunction was dismissed with costs.
2. Vijai Shanker Dwivedi filed a suit before Munsif North, Unnao against the revisionists saying that prior to 8-11-1971 this institution had the status of a High School. It was raised to the status of an Intermediate College on the said date. Before it became a College Vijai Shanker Dwivedi was serving the institution as its Head Master since 1957. The Managing Committee of the institution passed a resolution on 13-12-1971 resolving to promote the opposite as Principal of the College and appointed a Selection Committee to proceed with the selection. Subsequently opposite party No. 1 Vijai Shanker Dwivedi ran into disfavours with the Manager who did not take any further proceedings towards enforcement of the said resolution and did not call the meeting of the Selection Committee for final selection to the post and the resolution of the Selection Committee was never forwarded to the Department of Education for approval. It was alleged further that defendant-revisionist were threatening to suspend the plaintiff-opposite party. On these facts and allegations, in the main, the opposite party prayed for a mandatory injunction directing defendant-revisionists to carry out the resolution of 13-12-1971 by calling the meeting of the Selection Committee and by submitting necessary papers regarding plaintiffs promotion to the Department of Education for final approval. There was also a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-revisionists from interfering with the day-to-day working of the plaintiff as Principal of the institution.
3. During the pendency of the suit Vijai Shanker Dwivedi moved an application under Order 39, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Munsif and prayed for a temporary injunction restraining defendant-revisionists from taking any steps for his suspension. The Munsif granted an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from suspending or removing the plaintiff from the office of Principal till further orders. This injunction was, however, eventually vacated by the Munsif and the application for injunction was dismissed on 30-5-1974. Vijai Shanker Dwivedi appealed. The Civil Judge, Unnao, allowed the appeal and restored the ad interim injunction order of the Munsif dated 23-4-1973 in terms quoted above.
4. It is from this order of the Civil Judge dated 15-10-1974 that the present revision arises. I have heard Sri K. B. 5inha appearing for the institution and Sri S.D. Misra appearing for Vijai Shanker Dwivedi. The Civil Judge has committed a number of material irregularities in passing the injunction. First and foremost, there was no prayer in the plaint for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from suspending the plaintiff. There was also no prayer for injunction in the suit restraining the defendants from removing the plaintiff. The only prayer that the suit contained was for restraining defendants from interfering with the day-to-day working of the plaintiff as Principal.
For the first time in the application under Order 39, Rule 2 a prayer was made to the effect that the defendants be restrained from taking any steps for suspension of the plaintiff. Even in this application there was no prayer for injunction restraining the defendants from removing the plaintiff. Temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be granted on the terms of the prayer for permanent injunction in the suit and not in different terms. In Para 16 of the plaint although there was mention made of a threat and yet the plaintiff chose not to pray for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from suspending him and felt contended merely with the prayer for restraining defendants from interfering with his day-to-day working as Principal. The view
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.