Judgment

SHAH, J.: By order of the President of India, H. H. the Maharana Sahib Shri Bhagwatsingh Bahadpur-hereinafter called the appellant - was recognised as the Ruler of Udaipur with effect from July 4, 1955 in succession to his father the late Maharana Bhupal Singh.

2. A dispute arose between the appellant and his employees in the "Motor Garage department about the conditions of the employment and representations were made by the latter to the Government of Rajasthan through the Motor Workers Mazdoor Union, Udaipur. The Government of the State of Rajasthan, on December 18, 1957 referred under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 14 of 1947, the following dispute of the Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan:

"Whether the Maharana Sahib Bahadur of Udaipur is liable to pay of the staff working with him in the Palace Power. House and Motor Garage, consequent to their retrenchment, the arrears of claims or the due salary, leave wages, overtime wages and weekly holidays as per schedule appended hereto and if so, to what extent. If not, to what relief that staff is entitled to under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, as the question of payment of these claims has arisen with the termination of their services due to retrenchment effected by the employers.

3. Two preliminary objections were raised before the Industrial Tribunal by the appellant against the maintainability of the reference

1. That the reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute was not maintainable without the previous sanction of the Central Government to the making of the reference.

2. That on the date when the reference was made no Industrial Tribunal was constituted under S. 7 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as amended by Act 36 of 1956, and on reconstitution of the Tribunal, the reference became incompetent.

The Tribunal rejected both the objections and a writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the validity of the order of the Tribunal was dismissed by the High Court of Rajasthan. The appellant has appealed to this Court, with certificate granted by the High Court of Rajasthan.

4. The appellant contends in the first instance that without the sanction of the Union Government under S. 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure, the reference to the Industrial Tribunal was incompetent. But the dispute between the parties relates to the claim made by the employees for retrenchment and other compensation and leave facilities: the dispute is raised before the Industrial Tribunal in a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, and not before a Civil Court in a suit. The appellant is therefore not "sued in a Court. Section 86, Code of Civil Procedure on which reliance is placed, by the first sub-section provides that:

"No Ruler of a foreign State may be sued in any Court otherwise competent to try the suit except with the consent of the Central Government certified in writing by a Secretary to that Government:

and by S. 87B the provisions of S. 86 apply in relation to the Ruler of any former Indian State as they apply in relation to the Ruler of a foreign State.

5. The appellant is recognised under Art. 366 (22) of the Constitution as a Ruler of an Indian State, but S. 86 in terms protects a Ruler from being "sued and not against the institution of any other proceeding which is not in the nature of a suit. A proceeding which does not commence with a plaint or petition in the nature of plaint, or where the claim is not is respect of dispute ordinarily triable in a Civil Court, would prima facie not be regarded as falling within S. 86 Code of Civil Procedure. The proceeding for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act. is founded in a reference made by the local Government under S. 10 and the allied sections under the Industrial Disputes Act and is not commenced by a plaint or petition. An Industrial Tribunal is again not a Court within the meaning of S. 86; it is a Tribunal constituted for adjudicating industrial disputes. S