JUDGMENT :- This is a defendant's first appeal from an order of remand.

2. The plaintiff respondents were employed by the defendant-appellant in various capacities. On September 30, 1967 an order was passed terminating their services. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit on November 11, 1967, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from giving effect to the order, dated September 30, 1967. They also prayed for a temporary injunction. On December 4, 1967, an objection was filed on behalf of the defendant-appellant. It was said that the plaint ought to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, because no notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was sent or served on the defendant-appellant and such a notice was absolutely mandatory. The learned Civil Judge of Gorakhpur upheld the objection and dismissed the suit (he really ought to have rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure). In paragraph 17 of the plaint, it was pleaded that the purpose of the suit would be defeated if two month's notice were given under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that, therefore, 'it must be dee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document