JUDGMENT

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J. — Although respondent is served, nobody appears for the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment dated 3rd September, 2002 of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 138 of 1997.

3. We have heard Mr. S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants. The respondent was appointed as a Conductor on daily wages by the Corporation. His services were terminated as the same were not required by the Corporation. The High Court, without considering the fact that the respondent being daily wager has no substantive right to hold the post, however, has committed serious error in dismissing the second appeal filed by the Corporation and affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court and also of the Trial Court. In our view, the High Court has committed a grave error in not considering the fact that the respondent being workman and a dispute being an industrial dispute, Civil Court has no jurisdiction and try the suit for reinstatement. Trial Court which passed the decree has got no pecuniary jurisdiction and, therefore, the decree passed by the Trial Court is without jurisdiction. The above su