2009 (2) TMI 807 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether in holding the departmental proceeding the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders were violated? Whether in a case of this nature where violation is alleged as regards compliance of principles of natural justice either on common law principles or in terms of the statutory Regulations framed by the appellant - Corporation, which is a fundamental right in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, a civil suit will be maintainable or not?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts in employment termination disputes involving statutory regulations and principles of natural justice.
2. Applicability of Industrial Disputes Act and Certified Standing Orders in employment disputes.
3. Doctrine of prospective overruling and its applicability.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts in Employment Termination Disputes:
The primary issue revolves around whether civil courts have the jurisdiction to entertain suits questioning the termination orders passed by the appellant-Corporation against the respondents. The respondents filed suits alleging that their termination violated the principles of natural justice. The jurisdiction of civil courts is governed by Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which states that courts have jurisdiction to try all civil suits unless expressly or impliedly barred by statute. It is well-established that the jurisdiction of civil courts is plenary, and any bar must be explicitly stated in the statute. The court emphasized that civil courts have jurisdiction to determine their jurisdiction based on the averments in the plaint and that there is a presumption in favor of civil court jurisdiction unless expressly barred.

2. Applicability of Industrial Disputes Act and Certified Standing Orders:
The conflict between the two judgments, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. vs. Krishna Kant & Ors. and Rajasthan SRTC & Ors. vs. Khadarmal, centers on whether disputes involving the enforcement of rights under Certified Standing Orders should be adjudicated by civil courts or forums created by the Industrial Disputes Act (1947 Act). The court noted that the 1947 Act provides forums for resolving industrial disputes and that the Certified Standing Orders are binding on both employers and employees. However, it was emphasized that if the dispute involves the enforcement of rights created by the Industrial Disputes Act or sister enactments, the only remedy is to approach the forums created by the said Act. The court also highlighted that the principles laid down in Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay should be applied, which state that if the dispute arises from general law of contract, civil courts have jurisdiction, but if it involves rights under the Industrial Disputes Act, the remedy lies with the forums created by the Act.

3. Doctrine of Prospective Overruling:
The court discussed the doctrine of prospective overruling, which was applied in Krishna Kant. This doctrine allows a court to limit the retrospective effect of its judgment to avoid undue hardship. However, the court noted that this doctrine has limited application and generally applies where a statute is declared ultra vires, not where a court or tribunal acted without jurisdiction. The court emphasized that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or by a court's order if it does not exist. The court concluded that the doctrine of prospective overruling should not apply in cases where the court lacked jurisdiction, as such decisions would be nullities.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the jurisdiction of civil courts in employment termination disputes must be determined based on whether the rights and obligations being enforced arise under general law or specific statutes like the Industrial Disputes Act. If the dispute involves statutory regulations or principles of natural justice, civil courts may have jurisdiction. However, if the dispute involves rights under the Industrial Disputes Act or Certified Standing Orders, the forums created by the Act should be approached. The court also clarified that the doctrine of prospective overruling should not apply where the court lacked jurisdiction. The matters were remanded to the Division Bench for consideration based on the facts of each case.