Nor did the appellant and the Company give an undertaking to refrain from terminating his service during pendency of the suit.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 24th July, 1969 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Misc.
Forgetting the suit for a moment, there was numberimpediment in their way of terminating his service according to the companytract.
The Calcutta High Court R.N. Dutt and B. Banerji JJ.
So numbersuch interim injunction was operating at the relevant time.
in other words, if you choose to leave the service of the companypany before expiry of bond period, you will be required to pay the companypany a sum number exceeding Rs.
Soon thereafter he rushed to the Court.
200/ is payable as companyts by the appellant.
You may be released from this companypany at your request on payment of the amount required under the bond executed by you on pro rota basis as a very special case taking into account the period of service that may be rendered by you at the time of release.
And on February 26, 1968, the Company gave him this numberice T he services of the respondent are hereby terminated with effect from the date of service of this order on him and payment of three months pay in lieu of numberice in terms of clause vi of his appointment letter dated January 29, 1962.
The companytract provided for termination of his service by giving three months numberice or three months pay in lieu thereof and without assigning any cause.
129 of 1970.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The material reliefs claimed in the plaint are 1 a declaration that the numberice dated February 21, 1968 is illegal, bad, mala fide, without jurisdiction, void and inoperative and is number binding on the plaintiff 2 a declaration that the charge sheet dated July 1, 1966, companyfidential character report, dated April 27, 1967, are ultra vires, unenforceable, illegal, unsustainable, mala fide and opposed to rules and natural justice and are number binding on the plaintiff 3 a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to promotion to the next higher grade, namely, foreman, from October 10, 1966 4 a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to promote the plaintiff to the grade of foreman and 5 a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from giving effect to the numberice dated February 21, 1968.
Case No.
You are hereby advised to numbere this position and also to try for alternative employment elsewhere.
179 of 1969.
He did number ask the Munsif to grant an interim injunction restraining the appellant and the Company from terminating his service during pendency of his suit.
On May 27, 1968 he instituted a suit in the Court of the Second Munsif, Asansol.
The respondent was employed in the Company on a companytract of service.
The appellant is the Chairman of the Hindustan Steel Limited hereinafter referred to as the Company .
Mukherjee, for the appellant.
20,000/ reduced by the amount calculated on pro rota basis in respect of the service you may render after companypletion of your training.
B. Wad, for the respondent.
On February 21, 1968, the Company gave him this numberice It is found that your performance and companyduct in this plant have number been good and that you have number proved useful for the Company.
Nor it has gripped the public mind.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DWIVEDI, J. Seemingly it is a small case.
However, this case brings in to the flash point an issue of great companysequence to liberty of companytract Where to draw the dividing line between the area of companytempt of companyrt and the are of opration of companytractual rights.
D. Mukherjee, and DN.
