JUDGMENT

Addison, J. - This is an appeal by Mr. J.C. Highet, at present Agent of the North Western Railway, from an order, dated 27th October 1932, of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Lahore, refusing to discharge an injunction issued by him under Order 39, Rule 2, Civil P.C., on 10th October. An amended plaint was put in on 10th October 1932, by the North Western Railway Union, Lahore, through Mr. M.A. Khan and Dr. Shuja Ullah, Vice Presidents thereof, against the N.W. Railway Administration, Lahore, and the Agent, North Western Railway, Lahore. It is styled a claim and suit, under Sections 55 and 57, Specific Relief Act, for an injunction restraining the defendants from committing a breach of agreement and directing them not to discharge certain men on 10th October, 1932, or thereafter until the North Western Railways Union is consulted. In para. (1) of the plaint the plaintiffs are distinctly stated to be two Vice-Presidents. In para (4) it is said that the North Western Railway Union is a body representing the employees on the North Western Railway and is body duly recognised by the Government of India, etc.

2. The other paragraphs are to the effect that the All India Railwaymen Federation, in which the North Western Railway Union is represented, received information that certain employees were to be discharged; that a deputation of the All India Railwaymen Federation thereafter arrived at an agreement with the Railway Board that any representation made by the Union would be considered before any discharges were made; that on 2nd February 1932, the Railway Board informed the President of the All India Railwaymen Federation that a certain number of men on the North Western Railway were to be discharged but that this would be done only after the North Western Railway Union was consulted; that the Government of India published a communique on 6th June 1932, to this effect; that, though, the Agent, North Western Railway, was bound under these instructions to consult the North Western Railway Union, he had not done so; that this constituted a breach of a binding agreement arrived at on behalf of the plaintiffs and defendants; that in particular the Agent had issued notices of discharge to 183 employees fixing a certain date for their discharge and had finally decided to dismiss 159 men as from 10th October 1932, i.e., the date of the plaint, without personally discussing the matter with the Union, and without serving due notices on the 159 men; that the Agent by discharging the said 159 men would be committing a breach of the agreement arrived at between the parties and that if previous notice was not given to the North Western Railway Union and previous consultation with them did not take place, the employees would be out of work and this would result in heavy damages and litigation between the parties. It was therefore prayed that the Court be pleased to order, under Sections 55 and 57, Specific Relief Act, the defendants not to discharge the 159 men without due consideration and consultation and the notice to North Western Railway Union in terms of the said agreement.

3. A temporary injunction was applied for on the same day, i.e., 10th October 1932. By order of that date the Subordinate Judge First Class, merely said that, unless a temporary injuction issued, the suit would be infructfuous. He therefore directed the issue of a temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 2, Civil P.C., to the defendants restraining the defendants from discharging the 159 persons. No attempt was made to serve this temporary injunction upon defendant 1, i.e. the North Western Railway Administration, Lahore, but a notice directed to the Agent Northwestern Ry. Lahore, was sent by the Court restraining the defendants from committing a breach of the agreement and preventing them from discharging the men that day or thereafter. This notice apparently was not served. It was taken to one Mr. Muirhead, described as the Chief Personal Officer for the Nor