9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the termination order and the appellate authority's order. 2. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and try the suit. Summary: Issue 1: Legality of the Termination Order and the Appellate Authority's Order - The respondent, a bus driver employed by the appellant (a statutory corporation), was dismissed from service following a disciplinary proceeding initiated on 6.11.1982. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty, and the disciplinary authority ordered his dismissal on 31.5.1985, with no entitlement to further wages except subsistence allowance. - The respondent's appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 16.6.1987. - The respondent filed a civil suit challenging the termination and appellate orders. The Trial Court found the orders illegal, bad in law, and against the principles of natural justice due to: - Non-supply of documents mentioned in the charge-sheet. - Denial of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. - The Enquiry Officer acting like a prosecutor. - The suit was decreed, declaring the termination and appellate orders void, and the respondent was entitled to continuous service and monetary benefits. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Civil Court - The appellant contended that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, citing conflicts between Supreme Court decisions in *Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation v. Krishna Kant* and *Rajasthan SRTC v. Khadarmal*. - Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that Civil Courts have jurisdiction unless expressly or impliedly barred. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not expressly bar Civil Court jurisdiction. - Civil Courts have limited jurisdiction in service matters but can entertain suits where the plaintiff claims a fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution or mandatory statutory provisions. - The Supreme Court reiterated that Civil Courts have jurisdiction unless a right is claimed exclusively under the Industrial Disputes Act or its sister enactments. - The Court emphasized that statutory interpretation should not readily exclude Civil Court jurisdiction and that the burden of proof lies on the party claiming exclusion. - The Court referenced previous decisions, including *Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke*, which outlined principles for Civil Court jurisdiction in industrial disputes. - The Court concluded that if a right is claimed under common law or statutes other than the Industrial Disputes Act, Civil Courts have jurisdiction. If claimed under the Industrial Disputes Act, the jurisdiction is barred. - The appellant, being a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution, must comply with Article 14 and other constitutional provisions, as well as statutory regulations and principles of natural justice. Conclusion: - The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Civil Court's jurisdiction and the illegality of the termination and appellate orders. The respondent was entitled to reinstatement and back wages. No costs were awarded as the respondent did not appear.
|
