TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 1353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the order of termination having been dismissed by the City Civil Court, individual appeals had been preferred and all those appeals, six in number, stood disposed of by a common judgment of the learned Single Judge of Gujarat High Court. The Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Civil Court will have the jurisdiction to go into the question, as to whether the orders of termination of services were null and void, having been passed by an authority who had no competence to pass the same, but it had no jurisdiction to examine the alleged lacuna in the procedural part of disciplinary inquiry which is governed by Standing orders and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to enter into such question must be held to be impliedly barred. With this conclusion the learned Single Judge having set aside the judgment of the City Civil Court and having remitted the matter for adjudication, as to whether the order of termination could be interfered with on the ground of want of competence on the part of the authority, who had passed the order, the plaintiff/workman assailed the same by filing Letters Patent Appeal contending inter alia that the City Civil Court will have no jurisdicti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il Procedure the Civil Courts have the jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly bared. In view of language of Section 9, the counsel urged that there should be presumption in favour of the jurisdiction of a Civil Court and exclusion of the jurisdiction should not be readily inferred unless such exclusion is either explicitly expressed or clearly implied. According to Mr. Ahmadi, a law ousting the jurisdiction of a Civil Court should be strictly construed and the onus lies on the party who seeks to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, to establish the same. According to the learned counsel a litigant having a grievance of a civil nature has, independently of any statute, a right to institute a suit in a Civil Court and that right cannot be taken away unless the same is either expressly barred or impliedly inferred. According to the learned counsel the suits filed in the case in hand and the relief sought for, being civil in nature the jurisdiction of the Civil Court ought not to be held to be impliedly barred merely because the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court can entertain the dispute and grant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourts would normally do in a suit and only in such circumstance the Civil Courts' jurisdiction can be inferred to be excluded, but the Court hasten to add that even in such cases also the Civil Courts' jurisdiction cannot be said to be excluded, if it is alleged that the provisions of particular Act had not been complied with or that the statutory Tribunal have not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. Mr. Ahmadi, no doubt placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Sirsi Municipality by its President, Sirsi v. Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis - (1973)ILLJ226SC : (1973)ILLJ226SC and Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana -- (1987)IILLJ504SC , but in both these aforesaid cases the question of implied ouster of the jurisdiction of Civil Court where an Industrial Court can grant relief sought for was not the subject matter for consideration. The consideration in both the cases was whether the dismissal of a workman being assailed; can the Civil Court entertain and try the suit and the answer was in affirmative. Nobody disputes with the aforesaid proposition. The point in issue in the case in hand was not before this Court in the aforesaid two cases. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon the aforesaid observations for his contention that the dispute in the case in hand cannot be held to be dispute arising out of a right or liability under the Act, and on the other hand, is a dispute arising out of a right or liability under the common law, and as such, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court could not have been held to have been barred. This decision of the Court was considered by this Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Krishna Kant and Ors. -- (1995)IILLJ728SC . After quoting the principles enunciated by the Court in The Premier Automobiles' case (supra) and on consideration of a large number of decisions, it was held:- Para 28. Now, coming back to Principle No. 2 and its qualification in para 24, we must say that para 24 must be read harmoniously with the said principle and not in derogation of it - not so as to nullify it altogether. Indeed, Principle No. 2 is a reiteration of the principle affirmed in several decisions on the subject including Dhulabhai. Principle No. 2 is clear whereas para 24 is more in the nature of a statement of fact. It says that most of the industrial disputes will be disputes involving the rights an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... let us examine the facts of the appeals before us in the light of the principles adumbrated Premier Automobiles . The first thing to be noticed is the basis upon which the plaintiffs-respondents have claimed the several reliefs in the suit. The basis is the violation of the certified Standing Orders in force in the appellant- establishment. The basis is not the violation of any terms of contract of service entered into between the parties governed by the law of contract. At the same time, it must be said, no right or obligation created by the Industrial Disputes Act is sought to be entered in the suit. Yet another circumstances is that the Standing Orders Act does not itself provide any forum for the enforcement of rights and liabilities created by the Standing Orders. The question that arises is whether such a suit falls under Principle No. 3 of Premier Automobiles or under Principle No. 2? We are of the opinion that it falls under Principle No. 3. The words under the Act in Principle No. 3 must, in our considered opinion, be understood as referring not only to Industrial Disputes Act but also to all sister enactments-[like Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act] which do n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aning of Section 2(k) and Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes Act or where such enactment says that such dispute shall be either treated as an industrial dispute or says that it shall be adjudicated by any of the forums created by the Industrial Disputes Act. Otherwise, recourse to civil court is open. (4) It is not correct to say the remedies provided by the Industrial Disputes Act are not equally effective for the reason that access to the forum depends upon a reference being made by the appropriate Government. The power to make a reference conferred upon the Government is to be exercised to effectuate the object of the enactment and hence not unguided. The rule is to make a reference unless, of course, the dispute raised is a totally frivolous one ex facie. The power conferred is the power to refer and not the power to decide, though it may be that the Government is entitled to examine whether the dispute is ex facie frivolous, not meriting an adjudication. (5) Consistent with the policy of law aforesaid, we commend to Parliament and the State Legislatures to make a provision enabling a workman to approach the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal directly -- i.e., without t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relief sought for in the cases in hand, cannot be given by a forum under the Industrial Disputes Act. The legality of order of termination passed by the employer will be an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) and under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, every Award of Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal or National Tribunal is required to be published by the appropriate government within a period of thirty days from the date of its receipt and such Award published under Sub-section (1) of Section 17 is held to be final. 7. In the aforesaid premises and having regard to the relief sought for in the suits filed in the Civil Court, we have no manner of hesitation to come to the conclusion that in such cases the jurisdiction of the Civil Court must be held to have been impliedly barred and the appropriate forum for resolution of such dispute is the forum constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity with the impugned judgment of the High Court requiring our interference. The appeals accordingly fail and are dismissed. We would however observe that it would be open for the appellants-workmen to approach the appropria ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
