Back
2004(6) Supreme 324
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Delhi High Court)
N. Santosh Hegde, S.B. Sinha & A.K. Mathur, JJ.
B.S. Bharti -Appellant
versus
I.B.P. Company Ltd. -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 682 of 2001
Decided on 25-8-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S.L. Aneja, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Ashok Grover, Sr. Advocate, V.N. Koura, Ms. Paramjit Benipal, A. Mariarputham, Ms. Aruna Mathur and Ms. Anupama Grover, Advocates.
Held : Hence, a civil suit questioning the termination of service and ancillary relief as sought for in the suit filed by the appellant herein was not maintainable and the only remedy was to approach the forum created under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is to be noticed that the appellant did invoke the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act for getting the dispute referred to an appropriate forum under the said act for an adjudication but he failed and he did not pursue the remedy any further though such refusal could have been challenged by way of a writ petition. He having failed to do so he cannot then resort to a remedy by way of a civil suit which is otherwise not maintainable in law. We think the High Court was justified in coming to this conclusion. (Para 6)
As stated above, in cases where the application for reference under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act has been rejected by the appropriate authority, the aggrieved party should pursue the same by way of a writ petition and if possible get the dispute referred under the Industrial Disputes Act. If he fails to do so even after such attempt or fails to make such an attempt, the directions issued in para 37 of the above judgment in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (supra) does not apply. (Para 8)
JUDGMENT
Santosh Hegde, J.-This appeal arises out of the judgment of High Court of Delhi made in RFA No. 23 of 1989 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein and set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court consequently dismissing the suit filed by the respondent herein. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows :-
2. Appellant herein was employed by the respondent company in the year 1971 in its I.B.P. Depot, Shakur Basti, Delhi as a Fitter on daily basis. He continued to work in that capacity till 23rd of October, 1973 when the respondent treated his appointment as on probation for a period of six months from 23rd of April, 1973. At the end of that period the respondent extended the period of probation for a further period of 3 months without confirming his appointment. Being not satisfied with the performance of the appellant, on 24th of January, 1974 it terminated the service of the appellant. The appellant tried to raise an industrial dispute questioning his termination which was rejected by the Government concerned. Hence, he filed a suit in the Court of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi praying for a decree of Rs. 10,993.53/- towards arrears of salaries on the ground that his termination was illegal, malafide, wrongful, without authority of law, without jurisdiction and being against principles of natural justice and for a declaration that he ought to be continued in employment with full salary and allowances and bonus etc. The Trial Court framed the following issues:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff has no civic rights enforceable by a civil court as alleged in preliminary objections of the written statement? O.P.D.
(2) Whether the order of termination dated 24-1-1974 is illegal malafide, wrongful and against the principal of natural justice, if so, its effect? O.P.P.
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the amounts claimed in the suit? O.P.P.
(4) Relief.
3. After trial, the Trial Court decreed the suit of the appellant. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court the respondent herein preferred a Regular First Appeal before the High Court of Delhi and by the impugned judgment the High Court following a judgment of this Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Another Vs. Krishna Kant & Others, (1995) 5 SCC 75 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. While doing so, it held that an amount of Rs. 10,993.53/- which was paid to the plaintiff-appellant at the time of admission of the appeal need not be refunded to the respondent therein, i.e. the appellant herein. As stated above, it is against the said judgment of the Appellate Court plaintiff-appellant is before us.
4. As noted by us hereinabove the prayer of the appellant to refer the dispute to Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court was refused by the appropriate Government on 1-1-1975. The appellant has not challenged that order till date. He filed a suit in the year 1975 without making an effort to get his dispute settled through the provisions of the Industrial Employment in (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 which even according to him was applicable to him and the remedy for which was under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act which in term clearly prohibits maintainability of a civil suit.
5. This Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Another (supra) after considering various judgments rendered earlier in these questions laid down the principles applicable in regard to seeking relief in labour disputes which are as follows:-
"We may now summarise the principles flowing from the above discussion :-
(1) Where the dispute arises from general law of contract, i.e., where reliefs are claimed on the basis of the general law of contract, a suit filed in civil court cannot be said to be not maintainable, even though such a dispute may also constitute an "i
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
