Important points1. It is not open to the High Court to bye-pass Section 10 CPC by invoking Section 151 CPC.2. The proceedings before the Labour Court cannot be equated with the proceedings before the Civil Court.

Headnote:(i) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 10 rw/s 151—Stay of suit instituted in a Civil Court—Proceedings before the Labour Court cannot be equated with the proceedings before the Civil Court. (Para 10)
       (ii) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 10 rw/s 151—Removal from service—Appellant initiated disciplinary proceedings against respondent on charges of misappropriation of drugs—Respondent was working as senior pharmacist in appellant Institute—Respondent was found guilty of alleged misappropriation of drugs—Being aggrieved by order of dismissal, respondent moved the Labour Court—Labour Court passed an award setting aside the order of removal—Appellant Institute filed writ petition challenging the award of Labour Court—Civil suit was filed for recovery of loss suffered by the management to the tune of Rs. 1,79,688.46 with interest—Respondent filed an application u/s 10 rw/s 151 CPC seeking stay of civil suit—Whether this application filed by respondent was maintainable—(No)—Cause of action of two proceedings is distinct and different—They are not the Courts of concurrent jurisdiction—Labour Court cannot be equated with proceedings before the Civil Court—Section 10 has no application to the facts of this case.
       Held : Thus, as can be seen from the above 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 above, 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 No. 24348/02 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. (Paras 9 to 11)
       Inherent jurisdiction of the Court to make orders ex debito justitiae is undoubtedly affirmed by section 151 CPC, but that jurisdiction cannot be exercised so as to nullify the provisions of the Code. Where the Code deals expressly with a particular matter, the provision should normally be regarded as exhaustive. In the present case, as stated above, section 10 CPC has no application and consequently, it was not open to the High Court to bye-pass section 10 CPC by invoking section 151 CPC. (Para 12)

Judgment

Kapadia, J.—Leave granted.

2. This appeal by grant of special leave is directed against judgment and order dated 8.9.2003 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Civil Revision Petition No. 2211 of 2003.

3. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:

On 29.6.1985, respondent herein was appointed as senior pharmacist in National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences, appellant herein. On 21.6.1988, respondent herein was charge-sheeted for alleged misappropriation of drugs to the extent of Rs. 1,79,668.46. A detailed and elaborate enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer. On 20.2.1993, the enquiry officer submitted his findings holding that the respondent, as a senior pharmacist, was responsible for shortages of drugs in the year 1987 to the extent of Rs. 1,79,668.46. By show-cause notice dated 1.3.1993, the disciplinary authority, being the Director of the appellant-Institute, stated that he has perused the enquiry report dated 20.2.1993 and he was satisfied with the findings given by the enquiry officer. Consequently, by the said show-cause notice, the respondent herein was called upon to show-cause why penalty of removal from service should not be imposed. By the said show-cause notice, the respondent herein was asked to explain as to why the pecuniary loss suffered by the appellant be not recovered from him. The respondent herein submitted his reply to the show-cause notice. By order dated 12.4.1993, the disciplinary authority ordered removal of respondent from service and also directed the respondent to reimburse the appellant to the extent of pecuniary loss suffered. Being aggrieved, the respondent herein moved the appellate authority.

4. By notice dated 10.6.1993, the appellant called upon the respondent to pay Rs. 1,79,668.46 on and before 30.6.1993, on account of the pecuniary loss suffered by the appellant. On failure on the part of the respondent to reimburse the loss, the appellant filed civil suit No. 1732 of 1995 in the Court of City Civil Judge, Bangalore, seeking a decree for Rs. 1,79,668.46 with interest. The said suit was instituted on 13.3.1995. On 16.2.1996, the respondent herein filed his written statement in the above suit. On 23.12.1997, the Government of Karnataka referred the industrial dispute raised by the respondent to the Labour Court at Bangalore for adjudication. The question before the Labour Court was — whether the action of the appellant in removing the respondent from service by order dated 12.4.1993 was justified. On 16.8.2000, issues were framed by the Civil Court in the aforestated suit No. 1732/95, the main issue being whether the Institute proves that the respondent has caused pecuniary loss of Rs. 1,79,668.46. On 29.10.2001, the Labour Court set aside the order of removal dated 12.4.1993 and directed reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service but without back wages.

5. Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, the appellant preferred writ petition No. 24348 of 2002 in the High Court questioning the award of the Labour Court dated 29.10.2001. By interim order dated 24.7.2002, the High Court stayed the operation of the order of reinstatement dated 29.10.2001 passed by the Labour Court.

6. On 20.6.2003, the respondent herein filed an application under section 10 read with section 151 CPC, in the said suit no. 1732/95. By the said application, the respondent herein sought stay of the said suit till disposal of the writ petition No. 24348/02. By order dated 20.6.2003, the application for stay of the suit filed by the respondent was dismissed by the City Civil Judge, Bangalore. Being aggrieved, the respondent herein filed Civil Revision Petition No. 2211/03 before the High Court challenging the order of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore, dismissing application for stay under section 10 CPC. The said civil revision petition was opposed by the appellant inter alia on the ground of non-applicability of section 10 CPC to the facts of the present case. By the impugned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 1570

Important points1. It is not open to the High Court to bye-pass Section 10 CPC by invoking Section 151 CPC.2. The proceedings before the Labour Court cannot be equated with the proceedings before the Civil Court.

Cases Referred (1)