1982 (3) TMI 278 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain a suit filed by a workman in connection with an industrial dispute.
2. Applicability of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
3. Reference to Labour Court or Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
4. Interpretation of principles laid down in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlakar Shantaram Kadke.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court:
The primary issue was whether a Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed by a workman in connection with an industrial dispute if no steps had been taken by him to have the dispute referred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The court reframed the question to focus on the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in such cases.

The court noted that there is no specific section in the Industrial Disputes Act that expressly bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts regarding industrial disputes. The matter must be examined on the principle that if a special jurisdiction or tribunal is created, matters within such jurisdiction are impliedly barred from the cognizance of Civil Courts.

2. Applicability of Article 311:
Although initially framed to consider the protection under Article 311 of the Constitution, the court agreed that the distinction between a workman protected by Article 311 and one not so protected is without a difference for the purpose of this issue. Therefore, the applicability of Article 311 was not a deciding factor in this judgment.

3. Reference to Labour Court or Tribunal:
The court examined the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, particularly Section 10, which pertains to the reference of industrial disputes to Labour Courts or Tribunals. It was highlighted that the powers of Labour Courts and Tribunals are far more extensive than those of Civil Courts, allowing them to lay down industrial policy and order reinstatement of dismissed workmen, which Civil Courts generally cannot do.

4. Interpretation of Principles in Premier Automobiles Ltd. Case:
The court relied heavily on the principles laid down in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlakar Shantaram Kadke, summarizing them as follows:
1. If the dispute is not an industrial dispute, nor does it relate to enforcement of any right under the Act, the remedy lies only in the Civil Court.
2. If the dispute is an industrial dispute arising out of a right or liability under the general or common law and not under the Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is alternative, leaving it to the suitor to choose his remedy.
3. If the industrial dispute relates to the enforcement of a right or obligation created under the Act, the only remedy available is adjudication under the Act.
4. If the right sought to be enforced is created under the Act, the remedy for its enforcement is either Section 33-C or the raising of an industrial dispute.

The court concluded that the dismissal or removal of workmen employed in the State Roadways Departments raises a dispute arising out of rights or liabilities under the general or common law. Therefore, under principle (2), the workman has the alternative remedy to either approach the Civil Court or seek remedies under the Act. Since the workmen in this case chose to approach the Civil Court without resorting to the Act, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Conclusion:
The court held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit by a workman in connection with an industrial dispute arising out of a right or liability under the general or common law if no steps had been taken by him to resort to the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. The appeals were sent back to the learned Single Judge for disposal on merits in light of this conclusion.