Back
RUMA PAL, A.R.LAKSHMANAN
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Zakir Hussain – Respondent
Key Points: - The Civil Court jurisdiction in matters involving industrial disputes where the employee is a probationary/adhoc appointee governed by Standing Orders is discussed and contrasted with the exclusive remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. (!) (!) (!) - The Court holds that where rights and obligations arise under the Industrial Disputes Act or under sister enactments like Standing Orders, the remedy is to pursue adjudication under the Act rather than a civil suit; thus, suits filed in civil court are not maintainable in such circumstances. (!) (!) (!) - The appellant-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation’s termination of a probationary conductor on ad hoc/daily-wage basis, without enquiry, was examined to determine whether termination simpliciter is punishable or not, and the judgment concludes that such terminations are not necessarily punitive and may be lawful under contract, thus not requiring Article 311 protections. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Court references precedents (Premier Automobiles, Krishna Kant, Jitendra Nath Biswas, etc.) to articulate the general rule that if a dispute arises under general contract law and not under the Act, civil court jurisdiction may accompany such disputes; but if it involves rights/obligations under the Industrial Disputes Act or Standing Orders, the Act provides the remedy. (!) (!) (!) - The decision ultimately states that the respondent ought to have pursued remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act and not a civil suit, and the civil court suits are barred; the appeal is allowed with discharge of the respondent from service and no further back wages. (!) (!) (!)
Judgment
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.—Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 24.09.2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 239 of 1997 whereby the High Court has dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant-Corporation.
3. The respondent was appointed as conductor on daily wages with the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. He was appointed as conductor on probation for a period of two years. The services of the respondent were terminated on 08.05.1984 as the same were not found to be satisfactory. Necessary compensation was paid to the respondent as per the rules of the Corporation vide Order No. 297. Against the order of termination, the respondent-plaintiff filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which was dismissed on 22.10.1984.
4. The respondent filed a suit for declaration in the Court of Additional Munsiff, Jaipur alleging that the order of termination dated 08.05.1984 and the order of the appellate Authority dated 22.10.1984 being illegal, bad in law and against the principles of natural justice and, therefore, is liable to be set aside an
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
