Back
1996(1) Supreme 221
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I. and M.M. Punchhi, J.
The Ajmer Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Ajmer, through the Managing Director
-Appellant
versus
The Prescribed Authority, under the Rajasthan Shops & Com. Establishment Act, Ajmer & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3032 of 1990
Decided on 5.1.1996
Held : It was urged on behalf of the appellant that the impugned orders of the Authority, both on the question of limitation and on merit, were hit by the principle of res judicata. And to support the argument, attention was invited to the two orders of the Civil Court, Original as also Appellate, whereby the application for the second respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. were dismissed. certain precedents on general principles of res judicata were cited but none to say that orders of the kind could be the base for plea of res judicata. They obviously can be of no avail to the appellant. The observations and the decisions made by the Civil Courts, Original as well as Appellate, which might have been favourable to the appellant, in the nature of their jurisdiction, were never final and were meant to merge back or subsume in the final result of the suit. No one can be heard to say that the matters therein were "directly and substantially" in issue, which debarred the Authority to determine the controversy between the parties on merit. Additionally its stand, pertinently taken in the written statement, before the Authority was to claim the stay of the proceedings on the premise that in order of time, the suit stood filed earlier. Specifically Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code was invoked to make such claim. No bar of res judicata was pleaded. It is too late in the day now to permit the appellant to be raising such plea and that too without any basis. The contention is thus rejected. (Para 10)
(ii) Rajasthan Shops & Establishment Act, 1958-Section 28A(2)-Complaint against dismissal to prescribed authority-Limitation 30 days-Dismissal on 1.7.1983-Communication on 2.1.1985-Complaint filed on 7.1.1985-Whether in time? (Yes) (Paras 5 and 11)-Whether allowance of complaint on merits needs any interference? (No)
(iii) Rajasthan Shops & Establishment Act, 1958-Section 28A(2)-Complaint under against termination of service-Employee first elected to move Civil Courts-Failed-Then moved under said Act-Whether debarred? (No) (Para 12)-Appeal dismissed.
Held : It was then urged that the second respondent having elected to move the Civil Court, he was debarred from moving the Authority under Section 28A of the Act. A Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sukhi Ram v. State of Haryana, 1982 Labour & Industrial Cases 1282, was cited to buttress the argument. That case is wholly inapplicable to the facts in hand. That was a case in which it was ruled that an employee who does not take the aid of Industrial Disputes Act, whereunder powers of the deciding authorities were more extensive and wide than those of the Civil Court, jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred for him. No basis has been suggested to us, and we find none ourselves, on the premise of which it could be ruled that the Authority had no jurisdiction to go into the matter. As said earlier there is no provision in the Act barring the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and conversely there is no provision under the Code of Civil Procedure barring the jurisdiction of the Authority under the Act. This contention of the appellant too must fail. (Para 12)
JUDGMENT
Punchhi, J.-This appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) dated September 21, 1987 in Civil Writ Petition No. 2333 of 1987 is a coiled cause, swollen in mass, requiring enough of load-shedding so as get to the core of the controversy.
2. The appellant-bank is an apex body. It is a Central Cooperative Society registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, operating in the District of Ajmer. There are village level cooperative societies (in short called the "Samitis") and those too are registered under the aforesaid Act. The village level Samitis are members of the appellant-bank. They obtain loans from the appellant-bank and lend them over to their agriculturist members. The Samitis are headed by Managers who are appointed under the relevant rules framed under the aforesaid Act. Those rules provide the method in which disciplinary action can be taken against the employees of the Samitis, including the Managers.
3. The second respondent, Bhagwan Singh was the Manager of one such Samiti in village Kayad. It appears that there were complaints against him of misuse and embezzlement of funds of the Samiti. Initially, in some instances, he was asked to make good the money of the supposed misuse or embezzlement. Some payments apparently were agreed to be made by the second respondent. Still there were others in which there arose disputes. The second respondent in the meantime was suspended and chargesheets were served on him. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and an enquiry held. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report. Some of the charges were reported proved against the second respondent. A second notice was given to him to show cause why he be not dismissed from service. On July 1, 1983, order for dismissal of service was passed against the second respondent. According to the appellant it was dispatched to the second respondent the same day vide Registered A.D. but according to the second respondent no such dispatch was made as he was never served with the dismissal order. On July 4, 1983, the second respondent filed a Civil Suit No. 422 of 1983 for injunction in the Court of the Munsiff, Ajmer City (East), Ajmer, impleading the appellant as the sole respondent. His main attack in the suit was against the initiation of the enquiry, the manner in which it was conducted and the procedural illegalities with which it was rife. The following relief was claimed in the suit :
(a) decree for permanent mandatory injunction order restraining the defendant, its officers, agents, employees etc. from removing, terminating or awarding any kind of punishment on the plaintiff in pursuance of the enquiry conducted on the basis of charge-sheets dated 10-1-1982 and 22-9-1982;
(b) costs of the suit; and
(c) any other relief which the Hon ble Judge deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. Simultaneous to the filing of suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. was laid before the trial Court but the same after contest was dismissed on 23.11.1984. The second respondent preferred an appeal against the said order before the Court of the District Judge, Ajmer which too was dismissed vide order dated 22-12-1984. Apparently, thereafter, the suit file got stuck up in the appellate Court and its arrival was awaited, whereafter on 12-8-1985, the trial Court passed the following order (translated) :
"The case present. The file has been received. The plaintiff does not want to press the suit. Therefore, the suit is dismissed without any cost. The file is sent to record room.
Sd/-
Munsif and Judicial Magistrate
1st Class, Ajmer City (East)"
5. Before-hand, however, the second respondent on 7-1-1985, while the suit was pending, and having failed to obtain a temporary injunction, moved the Authority under Rajasthan Shops & Establishments Act, 1958 by presenting a complaint under Section 28A of
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
