IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Civil Courts may have limited jurisdiction in service matters, but jurisdiction may not be available to Court to adjudicate on orders passed by disciplinary authority.
(2) Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a suit structured on provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

JUDGMENT :

HRISHIKESH ROY, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ajit Singh Pundir, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (plaintiff). Also heard Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (defendant).

2. The challenge here is to the judgment dated 6.11.2008 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh whereunder the defendant’s Civil Revision No. 16/2006 was allowed with the observation that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the civil suit based on the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the ID ACT”) and therefore, the judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff are a nullity. The Court also opined that a plea on absence of jurisdiction can be raised even at the stage of execution of proceedings.

3. The appellant was a daily wage employee under the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”). The service of the temporary employee was dispensed with by order dated 1.1.1985 issued by the Executive Engineer. This was challenged in the Civil Suit No. 100/1985. The plaintiff claimed to have rendered uninterrupted service for 2778 days and asserted the right to be regularized after completion of 240 days of continuous service. The defendant per-contra contended that the plaintiff never worked for a continuous period of 240 days and as such he is disentitled to claim regularization.

4. Whether the civil court has jurisdiction and whether the Plaintiff had completed 240 days of uninterrupted service were the main issues framed by the civil court. Both the issues ware answered in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Judge referred to the provisions of Section 25B and 25F of the ID Act and noted that the plaintiff had rendered service for well above 240 days in one year and therefore his service could not have been terminated without complying with the statutory requirement. Accordingly, the suit was decreed ordering reinstatement of the plaintiff with back wages. The defendant was directed to also consider regularization of service, for the plaintiff.

5. The Board challenged the above decision in the Civil Suit No. 100 of 1985, before the District Judge, Dharamshala by filing the Civil Appeal No. 123/1988. The jurisdiction of civil court was again questioned but the appellate court observed that the question of jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and facts and since the litigation is continuing for long, it would not be proper to relegate the plaintiff to the labour court. According to the appellate court the workman was entitled to choose the remedy either before the civil court or before the Industrial Court. As the service of a daily wager was terminated, the same was treated to be a retrenchment without compliance with Section 25F of the ID Act. The decree favouring the plaintiff was accordingly upheld by rejecting the jurisdictional objection raised by the Board.

6. The judgment debtor’s further challenge to the decree were not entertained and then the Board made the offer to appoint the terminated daily wager to the post of LDC in the regular pay scale, with effect from 1.9.2001 (Annexure P4). Responding to the appointment offer, the appellant gave a joining report on 1.9.2001 (Annexure P5), but since the same was hedged with various conditions, the joining report was not acted upon by the management.

7. Following the above, the decree holder applied for execution of the decree (12.10.1988) in the Civil Suit No. 100 of 1985 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division). The judgment debtor raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the application with the projection that all back wages were paid to the decree holder and he was also offered the post of LDC on 22.8.2001 and since the decree holder gave a conditional joining report and was required to re-submit a joining report as per rules, nothing further is required to be done for execution of the decree. The executing court negated the Board’s objection and the application of the decree holder under Order XXI