Subhra Shankar Bose vs Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. & Ors

The instant appeal has been tendered challenging the impugned Order No. 2 dated March 19, 2020 passed by learned Judge, 7th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 453 of 2020 (Subhra Shankar Bose-vs-Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. & Ors).

By the impugned order, the learned Judge refused the prayer for interim injunction prayed for by the appellant.

Heard the submission advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant regarding the admissibility of the appeal. On being satisfied the appeal is hereby admitted and be registered accordingly.

In re: CAN 3013 of 2020.

It appears that the appellant has also filed one application being CAN No. 3013 of 2020 seeking direction upon the respondent company to allow the petitioner to continue in service in the Administrative Department of the respondents company and also restraining the respondents from terminating the petitioner from the said job of Manager in the Administrative Department in the defendant company.

Admittedly, the plaintiff/appellant is neither a Government servant within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India nor his service is governed by the provision of Industrial Disputes Act. He is an employee on probation under the defendant company i.e. Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

In view of the provision contained in Section 14 Clause (b) of the Specific Relief Act, the contract of personal service cannot be specifically enforced. As such, we are of the view that the relief sought for by the appellant/applicant in the present application is not maintainable. Hence, the said prayer is refused.

In view of the submission made by learned Counsel for the appellant the appeal is taken up for consideration on merit.

The appellant filed the Title Suit being No. 453 of 2020 before the learned Judge, 7th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta praying for declaration and permanent injunction. The appellant also prayed for temporary injunction with ad interim effect. His prayer for ad interim injunction was refused by the learned Judge. The grievance of the appellant/plaintiff is that he has not been confirmed in service inspite of completion of period of probation. Accordingly, he prayed for declaration to the effect that his service as Manager in the Administrative Department of the defendant company to be confirmed with effect from the date of his initial joining that i.e. on 18th March, 2019 and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and its men and agents from terminating his job without due process of law.

The learned Judge vide impugned order was of the view that there was contradictory averments made by the plaintiff/appellant in his application for temporary injunction.

The learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that without affording opportunity of being heard to the defendant company and without perusing the relevant documents it was not reasonable to pass an order of interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. The learned Judge also expressed his view that the plaintiff/appellant had no prima facie case or urgency and there was no possibility of loss or injury to the plaintiff/appellant.

From the impugned order it appears that the prayer for temporary injunction has not yet been finally disposed of. The learned Trial Judge was pleased to direct for issuance of show-cause notice upon the defendants regarding the prayer for temporary injunction.

Having regard to the materials placed on record and considering the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the relief as prayed for by the appellant/plaintiff, we do not find any reasonable ground to interfere with the impugned order.

Thus the miscellaneous appeal is disposed of with a direction upon the learned Trial Judge to dispose of the pending application for temporary injunction within 30 days from the date of lifting of the lockdown period.

Thus both the appeal and the application are disposed of.