Back
2008(1) Supreme 544
Supreme Court of india
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
S.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.
Chief Engineer, Hydel Project & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
Ravinder Nath & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 658 of 2008
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.18774 of 2005)
Decided on : 24-01-2008
(1995) 5 SCC 74 – Relied upon.
(b)Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 25G – Respondents complaining of non-compliance of the Certified Stranding Orders applicable to the establishment and also violation of section 25G of the Act – The dispute, therefore, clearly fell outside the civil court’s jurisdiction. (Para 15)
(1976) 1 SCC 496; (1989) 3 SCC 582; (1995) 5 SCC 74; (2005) 7 SCC 447; (2004) 7 SCC 550; (2002) 2 SCC 542 – Relied upon.
(c)Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 16(d) – Judicial Jurisdiction – So far as territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction are concerned, objection to such jurisdiction has to be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in any case at or before settlement of issues – If such objection is not taken at the earliest, it cannot be allowed to be taken at a subsequent stage. (Para 17)
(2005) 7 SCC 791 – Relied upon.
(d)Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 16(d) – Jurisdiction as to subject-matter, however, is totally distinct and stands on a different footing – Where a court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit by reason of any limitation imposed by statute, charter or commission, it cannot take up the cause or matter – An order passed by a court having no jurisdiction is a nullity – Neither consent nor waiver nor acquiescence can confer jurisdiction upon a court, otherwise incompetent to try the suit. (Para 17)
(1966) 1 SCR 461:AIR1966 SC 634; (1955) 1 SCR 117: AIR 1954 SC 340; (2007) 2 SCC 355; (1979) 2 SCC 34; (2006) 11 SCC 692; (2006) 12 SCC 404 – Relied upon.
(d)Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 16(d) – As the civil court had no jurisdiction in the present case, the original decree itself was without jurisdiction and hit by the doctrine of coram non judice – So there is no question of upholding the same merely on the ground that the objection to the jurisdiction was not taken at the initial, First Appellate or the Second Appellate stage – Resultantly the judgments of the Trial Court, First Appellate Court and the Second Appellate Court are liable to be set aside. (Para 19)
Facts of the case:
1.Nine respondents herein filed a Civil Suit before the Senior Sub Judge, Ropar for the relief of (i) declaration to the effect that the orders of their termination/retrenchment from service were illegal and (ii) that they were entitled to reinstatement in service with back-wages.
2.This claim was contested by the State of Punjab.
3.The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the defendants-appellants had not observed the principle of last come first go in making the retrenchments and the impugned orders of termination were held illegal. Consequently, it was held that the plaintiffs were entitled to declaration and mandatory injunction only to the extent that they had right to be taken back in service and in case it was found that they were entitled to be retained on the project on the basis of the seniority, they would be entitled to be absorbed on other projects of the defendants according to their qualifications and fitness within a period of six months from the date of the judgment.
4.This order of the Trial Court was appealed against by the defendants-appellants before the Additional District Judge, Ropar which appeal was dismissed.
5.The High Court dismissed the Second Appeal.
Findings of the Court:
The civil court had no jurisdiction in the matter. Hence the original order was without jurisdiction and so it cannot be sustained. It follows that all subsequent orders are also liable to be set aside.
Result : Appeal allowed.
judgment
1.Leave granted.
2.Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineer (Construction Circle) and Personnel Officer, Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project have filed this appeal to question the correctness of the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal confirming the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Ropar and Senior Sub Judge, Ropar, basically on the ground that there was a complete lack of jurisdiction in the above three Civil Courts since the issues squarely fall within the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such the remedy for the 9 respondents-workmen, who are workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, lies with the authorities thereunder and not with the Civil Court.
BASIC FACTS
3.Nine respondents herein filed a Civil Suit before the Senior Sub Judge, Ropar for the relief of (i) declaration to the effect that the orders of their termination/retrenchment from service were illegal and (ii) that they were entitled to reinstatement in service with back-wages. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs-respondents were skilled workers and were working on the Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project (hereinafter called ‘the Project’) in various capacities such as T. Mate, Mixer Operator, Beldar, etc. for more than 5 years and, therefore, as per the Standing Orders and Rules they were regular employees of the defendants. It was alleged that the defendants did not maintain any seniority-list of the workers and various categories of services on the said Project and they arbitrarily removed the plaintiffs-respondents from service on the dates mentioned in Annexure A to the plaint by obtaining their signatures on papers under coercion and force and also forced them to accept payments. It was further alleged that while removing the plaintiffs-respondent, the defendants-appellants did not observe the seniority, meaning thereby while the juniors were retained in service, the seniors were retrenched. It was alleged that action was based on pick and choose policy and was discriminatory and amounted to victimization. It was also alleged that those workers who had completed service for 1000 days, could not have been retrenched (as was held by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Mehanga Ram v. Punjab State Civil Writ No.718 of 1986).
4.This claim was contested by the State of Punjab. It was firstly urged that the suit was bad as common suit could not have been filed since the cause of action of each defendant was distinct and separate. It was urged that the plaintiffs-respondents were appointed on purely temporary basis as work-charged employees and after the completion of the project, their services were validly terminated as per Rule 20(1) read with Rule 3(a) of the Certified Standing Orders for the work-charged staff on the said Project. Since the termination was complete on payment of necessary gratuity etc., there can be no cause of action and as such the present suit was not maintainable in the present form. It was also urged that notice under Section 80 CPC was not given and the suit was also barred by limitation. It was reiterated that the principle of first come last go was strictly observed since there was a regular seniority-list maintained for the Project as a whole and that there was no discrimination or victimization. On merits also the suit was opposed on the ground that since the plaintiffs-respondent were work-charged employees for a work of temporary nature, on completion of the project their services were terminated as per the Rules which governed their service conditions (the Certified Standing Orders). The following issues were framed in between the parties by the Court:
“1.Whether the impugned orders of termination retrenchment of the plaintiffs are illegal, unauthorized, ultravires and ineffective as alleged? OPP
2.Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties? OPP
3.Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form? Opp
4.Whether no valid notice u/s 80 CPC has been served by the plaintiff
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
