Judgment :- Aggrieved over the fair and decreetal order dated 211. 2006 passed by the District Munsif, Coimbatore in I.A.No.2235 of 2006 in O.S.No.2690 of 2006, CRP.No: 1729 of 2006 has been filed. While so, CRP.No:1730 of 2006 has been preferred to strike off the plaint itself on the ground that the suit itself is not maintainable. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent originally filed O.S.No:756 of 2006 against 1)M/s.Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. rep. by its Executive President and 2) M/s.Bannari Amman Sugars Employees, Thrift and Credit Society rep. by its Secretary, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in anyway interfering with his day to day life and personal liberties either by causing danger to the person or otherwise under the guise of collecting money due to them. Thereafter the petitioner sent a letter dated 4. 2006 requesting the respondent to remit a sum of Rs.2,30,208.50 which has been received as advance by the respondent within seven days from the date of receipt of the letter. The respondent filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.23432 of 2006 and obtained an order of anticipatory bail on the ground that he resigned his job and gave consent letter to recover the misappropriated amount of Rs.2 lakhs by adjusting the same from the retirement benefits. The petitioner-company sent show cause notice to the respondent on 29. 2006, for which the respondent sent a detailed reply dated 29. 2006 stating that in order to get over the directions of the Honourable High Court as an after thought the petitioner has issued show cause notice seeking explanation from the ex-employee, who has already resigned from the service long back. The petitioner sent a show cause notice dated 29. 2006 directing the respondent to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for committing the misappropriation. The petitioner has also sent a letter on 110. 2006 to the respondent stating that it is true that on 11. 2005 the respondent has submitted a letter of resignation to the employer, but the same was not accepted and that the resignation would be considered only after the respondent clearing the charge of fraud played by him and for which the respondent has sent a reply dated 110. 2006 denying the allegations levelled against him and subsequent to that the petitioner sent a letter dated 111. 2006 denying the allegations levelled against him and subsequent to that the petitioner sent a letter dated 111. 2006 stating that charges have been framed against him. Thereafter, the respondent filed the present suit O.S.No.2690 of 2006 for permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioner-defendant from holding any domestic enquiry. The respondent has also filed an application in I.A.No.2235 of 2006 praying for a temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from conducting any domestic enquiry till the disposal of the suit. The trial court granted ad-interim injunction for a limited period. Challenging the same, CRP.No:1729 of 2006 has been preferred and CRP.No:1730 of 2006 has been preferred stating that the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain the very suit. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a registered company under the Companies Act 1956 and the respondent was an Office Assistant, entrusted with duties like booking travel tickets for the Directors of the petitioner company, staff members and guests, for which, he was taking advances from the company from time to time and filing vouchers and on 11. 2005 he submitted his resignation, but since there was a proposal by the petitioner-company to frame charge against the respondent for misappropriation of funds, the resignation letter was not accepted and a reply was sent by the respondent on 13. 2006 to the petitioner stating that a sum of Rs.2,30,208.58 was taken by him as advance for official expenses on various dates but the sum was not entirely utilised for the said purpose and the same was not brought to the notice of the petitioner that a sum of Rs.95,400/- was still payable by the respondent and in such circumstances, the respondent by letter dated 22. 2006 requested the petitioner to adjust the gratuity amount payable to him. He would further contend that the respondent has filed O.S.No.756 of 2006 seeking for a permanent injunction with ulterior motive to thwart the disciplinary enquiry proposed to be initiated by the petitioner-company. 5. 2006 requested the petitioner to adjust the gratuity amount payable to him. He would further contend that the respondent has filed O.S.No.756 of 2006 seeking for a permanent injunction with ulterior motive to thwart the disciplinary enquiry proposed to be initiated by the petitioner-company. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner also submitted that it is significant to note that the respondents wife and Mrs.S.Vijayalakshmi and Mrs.R.Bhuvaneswari, wives of P.Samidurai and K.Rajendran respectively, who were working as sales officers in the Sales Department of the petitioner-company have opened a partnership firm in the name and style of Kumaran Dhall Traders and they were purchasing sugar from the petitioner-company on extending credit facility from the petitioner company and thereby manipulating the accounts, they were able to misappropriate huge quantum of sugar in connivance with the respondent and the two Sales Officer who are the husbands of the partners of the said partnership firm. On verification of the accounts, it was found that as on 16. 2005, a huge amount of Rs.40,88,024/-was due from the said partnership firm to the petitioner-company and the respondent herein and that the two Sales Officers had manipulated the accounts of the petitioner-company. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further contend that the trial court ought not to have granted exparte order of interim injunction and the trial court has grossly erred in passing the impugned interim order when the suit itself is not maintainable and as per Section 41 of the Specific Relief act, an injunction cannot be granted in favour of the respondent restraining the revision petitioner from conducting a domestic enquiry more particularly, when the respondent is seeking to enforce a contract for personal services. It is also submitted that there is a specific bar under Section 14(b) of the Specific Relief Act, since the court cannot enforce the specific performance of its material terms. He would further contend that the respondent cannot invoke the common law remedy available under the Specific Relief Act and hence the trial court cannot invoke its jurisdiction under Section 9 C.P.C. and since the trial court has wrongly exercised its jurisdiction in taking the plaint on its file, the plaint is liable to be struck off from the file of the trial court. .7. .7. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the respondent was working as an Office Assistant with the petitioner company from the year 1986 and by letter dated 22. 2006, the respondent requested the petitioner company as against the allegation of misappropriation of company fund, to adjust his dues towards the loan amount borrowed from the Employees Thrift and Credit Society from and out of the gratuity payable to him. Considering the fact that the petitioner-company had already impliedly accepted the respondents resignation and in view of the fact that the respondent was no longer an employee, the respondent had filed O.S.No.2690 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore and that as against the order of interim injunction passed in I.A.No.2235 of 2006, this civil revision petition is not maintainable since the remedy of the petitioner company lies only by way of filing either a vacate injunction or by way of an appeal before the District Court challenging the order of injunction. In support of his plea the learned counsel appearing for the respondent pressed into service a judgement in the case of A.Venkatasubbiah Naidu Vs. S.Chellappan reported in AIR 2000 SC Page 3032, wherein the Supreme Court held that a revision need not be entertained against any order where an alternative statutory remedy is available to the aggrieved party. In the instant case, the petitioner company can by filing vacate injunction petition or by filing an appeal seek the reliefs but without exhausting this alternative statutory remedy, the petitioner company has straight away come by way of this civil revision petition. The petitioner should have filed a petition under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. before the lower court to reject the plaint. At the same time, for sufficient reasons, an aggrieved party can invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, where the very jurisdiction of the trial court in maintaining the suit is involved. 8. Admittedly, the respondent was working as an Office Assistant with the petitioner-company from the year 1986 and by letter dated 22. At the same time, for sufficient reasons, an aggrieved party can invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, where the very jurisdiction of the trial court in maintaining the suit is involved. 8. Admittedly, the respondent was working as an Office Assistant with the petitioner-company from the year 1986 and by letter dated 22. 2006 the respondent requested the petitioner company as against the allegation of misappropriation of company fund, to adjust his dues towards the loan amount borrowed from the Employees Thrift and Credit Society from out of the gratuity payable to him, since there was a proposal by the petitioner-company to frame charge against the respondent for misappropriation of funds. However, it is evident that the resignation letter was not accepted stating that a sum of Rs.2,30,208.58 was taken by him as advance for official expenses on various dates but the said sum has not been utilised in its entirety for the purpose for which it was availed and a sum of Rs.95,400/-is still payable by him, therefore the petitioners letter dated 22. 2006 requesting to adjust the gratuity amount payable to him was rejected and the disciplinary proceedings were initiated. .9. The contention of the respondent that a revision need not be entertained against any order where an alternative statutory remedy is available to the aggrieved party and the petitioner company can by filing a vacate injunction petition or by filing an appeal seek his reliefs but without exhausting such alternative statutory remedy, the petitioner company has straight away come by way of this civil revision petition is not maintainable cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the respondent as long as he continues to be an employee of the Management cannot restrain the disciplinary action by instituting a suit and a revision would very well lie before this court questioning the jurisdiction of the trial court in entertaining the suit. Even though it is a case of private employment, the management proposed to hold an enquiry against the delinquent officer, that is, the plaintiff. In case, the misappropriation is proved, there is possibility for termination of his service. Such a decision purely rests within the discretion of the management. If the management feels that the plaintiff is not complying with its directions it has a right to hold an enquiry against him. In case, the misappropriation is proved, there is possibility for termination of his service. Such a decision purely rests within the discretion of the management. If the management feels that the plaintiff is not complying with its directions it has a right to hold an enquiry against him. The management cannot be restrained from exercising its discretion in this behalf. Ultimately, if an injunction against the employer restraining it from conducting an enquiry is granted, it would indirectly mean that the court is permitting the plaintiff in continuing with his employment with the defendant company. The relationship between the parties is not based on a written contract between two private parties. Therefore, a suit for permanent injunction would amount to enforcing a contract of personal service which is barred under the law. 10. At the first instance, the respondent has filed O.S.No.756 of 2006 seeking for a permanent injunction with ulterior motive to thwart a disciplinary enquiry that was contemplated by the petitioner-company. It is significant to note that the respondents wife and Mrs. S. Vijayalakshmi and Mrs. R. Bhuvaneswari, wives of P. Samidurai and K. Rajendran respectively, who were working as sales officers in the sales department of the petitioner company have opened a partnership firm in the name and style of Kumaran Dhall Traders and they were purchasing sugar from the petitioner-company on extending credit facility from the petitioner company and by manipulating the accounts, they were able to misappropriate huge quantum of sugar in connivance with the respondent and the two sales officer who are the husbands of the partners of the said partnership firm. On verification of the accounts, it was found that as on 16. 2005, a huge amount of Rs.40,88,024/- was due from the said partnership firm to the petitioner-company and the respondent herein and the two officers had manipulated the accounts of the petitioner company thereby the respondent committed misappropriation of the funds from the petitioner company. In such a circumstances, the petitioner company cannot be restrained to take disciplinary action against the respondent by way of filing a suit for permanent injunction. Therefore, this court can invoke under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the affairs as the suit itself is not maintainable. In such a circumstances, the petitioner company cannot be restrained to take disciplinary action against the respondent by way of filing a suit for permanent injunction. Therefore, this court can invoke under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the affairs as the suit itself is not maintainable. In this case, the respondent admitted that he misappropriated the petitioner company fund and by sending his resignation stated that the amount may be deducted from the retirement benefit. Therefore the trial court ought not to have granted exparte order of interim injunction and the trial court has grossly erred in passing the impugned interim order when the suit itself is not maintainable. Further, as per Section 41 of the Specific Relief act, an injunction cannot be granted in favour of the respondent restraining the revision petitioner from conducting a domestic enquiry more particularly, when the respondent is seeking to enforce a contract for personal services. .11. Further, there is a bar under Section 14(b) of the Specific Relief Act which mandates that the contract, which runs into such minute or numerous details or it is so dependent on the personal qualifications or volition of the parties or otherwise of the nature that the court cannot enforce the specific performance of its material terms, such contracts cannot be specifically enforceable. There is an inherent right of the master to punish the servant and terminate its service of contract for personal service will remain value only if the servant discharges his duties to the satisfaction of his master. Further, the relief sought for in the suit is premature and that too even before the commencement of the domestic enquiry as only a show cause notice has been issued to the respondent as against a show cause notice, no injunction can be granted even in the writ jurisdiction and therefore the ad interim injunction granted by the trial court is illegal. Further, as already held, the revision petitioner being a private establishment and the suit for permanent injunction as against the initiation of the departmental proceedings would amount to enforcing a contract of personal service which is not permissible under the law. 12. Further, as already held, the revision petitioner being a private establishment and the suit for permanent injunction as against the initiation of the departmental proceedings would amount to enforcing a contract of personal service which is not permissible under the law. 12. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the respondent cannot invoke the common law remedy available under the Specific Relief Act and hence the trial court cannot invoke its jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to take the suit on its file since the employer and employee relationship still exists according to the revision petitioner/Management and the resignation letter has not been accepted till this date. Therefore, in the above circumstances, the plaint filed by the respondent for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from conducting any enquiry with regard to the misappropriation, which is not denied by the respondent, is liable to be rejected on the ground that the management cannot be restrained from exercising its discretion in this behalf unless and until it is proved that the employer and employee relationship has come to an end. Therefore, it is axiomatic that if the petitioner-company takes any disciplinary action against the respondent, he has to ventilate his grievance by approaching the proper forum at the appropriate time and not by way of filing the suit restraining the petitioner from exercising its right. Therefore it is a fit case where this court has to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit itself is not maintainable and the respondent has alternative remedy before the appropriate authority against the action taken by the petitioner company, which relates to employer and employee relationship. 13. In view of the above, CRP.No:1730 of 2006 is allowed striking off the plaint in O.S.No:2690 of 2006, pending on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, as not maintainable. Consequently, CRP.No:1729 of 2006 is also allowed as it arises challenging the order of ad interim injunction passed in the Interlocutory Application which is only an offshoot of the main suit. Consequently the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. There will be no order as to costs.