2004 (12) TMI 711 - SC - Indian Laws

Petition challenging an award by the Labour Court - maintainability of an application seeking stay of a civil suit under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC - HELD THAT - As can be seen from the facts both the proceedings operated in different spheres. The subject matter of the two proceedings is entirely distinct and different. The cause of action of the two proceedings is distinct and different. The cause of action in filing the said suit is the loss suffered by the appellant on account of the shortage of drugs. On the other hand in the said writ petition No. 24348/02 the management has challenged the award of the Labour Court granting reinstatement of the respondent As stated Section 10 CPC is referable to a suit instituted in a civil Court The proceedings before the Labour Court cannot be equated with the proceedings before the Civil Court. They are not the Courts of concurrent jurisdiction. In the circumstances Section 10 CPC has no application to the facts of this case. In the impugned judgment the High Court has observed that since the writ petition filed by the appellant against the award of the Labour Court was pending in the High Court and since the High Court was superior to the Civil Court it was desirable to stay the passing of the decree by the Civil Court. At this stage it may be mentioned that the respondent applied for stay of the trial pending in the City Civil-Court Bangalore under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC. Since the scope of the writ petition filed by the management was entirely distinct and separate from the suit instituted by the management in the Civil Court we are of the view that the High Court had erred in directing the trial Court not to proceed with the drawing up of the decree. Thus the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the issue of the maintainability of an application seeking stay of a civil suit under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC, in relation to a writ petition challenging an award by the Labour Court.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Disciplinary Proceedings and Civil Suit
The respondent was charge-sheeted for misappropriation of drugs and subsequently removed from service. The appellant filed a civil suit for recovery of the pecuniary loss. The Labour Court set aside the removal order and directed reinstatement without back wages.

Issue 2: Writ Petition and Application for Stay
The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the Labour Court's award. The respondent sought a stay of the civil suit pending disposal of the writ petition. The High Court stayed the civil suit but erred in directing the trial court not to proceed with the decree.

Analysis and Decision:
Section 10 CPC aims to prevent concurrent courts from trying parallel suits on the same matter. The subject matter and cause of action in the disciplinary proceedings and civil suit were distinct. The Labour Court and Civil Court are not concurrent jurisdictions, so Section 10 CPC does not apply.

The High Court's decision to stay the civil suit based on the writ petition's pendency was erroneous. Section 151 CPC cannot be used to bypass Section 10 CPC when the latter is inapplicable. The judgment clarified that the observations made do not bind the trial court or the High Court on the merits of the cases.

Citing the case of Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, the judgment emphasized that when the Code expressly addresses a matter, it should be considered exhaustive. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's order, with no costs imposed.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the inapplicability of Section 10 CPC to the case, the error in the High Court's directive, and the need to adhere to the provisions of the Code. The rights of the parties in the pending cases were preserved, and the appeal was allowed without costs.