Back
2020 Supreme(SC) 859
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, K.M. Joseph, JJ.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp. Managing Director & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Ramesh Kumar Sharma - Respondent
Civil Appeal No.7472 of 2011 C.A. No. 7475 of 2011 (XV) C.A. No. 7474 of 2011 (XV) C.A. No. 7473 of 2011 (XV) C.A. No. 7476 of 2011 (XV)
Decided On : 16-01-2020
Mr. S. K. Bhattacharya, Advocate, Mr. L.K. Paonam, Advocate, Ms. Seema Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Niraj Bobby Paonam, Advocate, Mrs. Tomthinnganbi Koijam, Advocate for the Appellant; Mr. Bankey Bihari Sharma, Advocate, [N.P.] Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, Advocate, [N.P.] Mr. Parmanand Gaur, Advocate, [N.P.] for the Respondent
Point of Law : Where reliefs are claimed on the basis of the general law of contract, a suit filed in civil court cannot be said to be not maintainable, even though such a dispute may also constitute an "industrial dispute" within the meaning of Section 2(k) or Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2-A and2(k) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, - Order VII Rule 11 - - Appellant Endeavoured to stall suit by raising a plea under order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 claiming that plaint is liable to be rejected and respondents to be relegated to remedy under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Plea did not find favour with learned Civil Judge, City who dismissed that application by order revision petition preferred against same was dismissed by High Court on - Twelve years hence Court are determining - Whether this exercise of two forums below was valid or not.
Finding Of The Court :
Certified Standing Orders framed under and in accordance with Industrial employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946 are statutorily imposed conditions of service and are binding both upon employers and employees, though they do not amount to "statutory provisions" - Any violation of these Standing Orders entitles an employee to appropriate relief either before forums created by Industrial Disputes Act or Civil Court where recourse to Civil Court is open according to principles indicated herein - Present case involves recovery of certain fine amount which cannot be said to be covered by Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes Act. - workmen in their wisdom (or possibly, lack of it) approached civil Court and have been left high and dry for last fifteen years without any adjudication on merits of their claims. – Court may also note that impugned orders are also, in a sense interlocutory in character.
Result : Appeal is Dismissed
ORDER
Civil Appeal No.7472/2011
1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. None has appeared for the respondent(s).
3. The civil suit was filed by the workmen for declaration and permanent injunction assailing a fine imposed on them by the appellant management. It is, inter alia, the plea of the respondents that what has been done is in violation of Regulation 35 of the standing order (which is non-statutory) in effect thus, the contractual obligation inter se the parties is alleged to have been breached.
4. The appellant endeavoured to stall the suit by raising a plea under order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 claiming that the plaint is liable to be rejected and the respondents to be relegated to the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The plea did not find favour with the learned Civil Judge, Jaipur City who dismissed that application by order dated 16.5.2006. The revision petition preferred against the same was dismissed by the High Court on 27.02.2008. Twelve years hence we are determining whether this exercise of the two forums below was valid or not!
5. We may note that only notice was issued in the matter and no interim order was granted. Logically speaking, the suit would have been tried and decided in the meantime, if not the appeal also considering the time period which has lapsed. We are, however, informed that the suit has not even been proceeded with on the basis that matter is pending before this Court. The facts pain us that the recourse to justice can be delayed for such an ad infinitum period of time.
6. On examination, we find that the principles set out in The Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay & Ors.- 1976(1) SCC 496 would govern i.e. as set out in para 9 below:
"9. It would thus be seen that through the intervention of the appropriate government, of course not directly, a very extensive machinery has been provided for settlement and adjudication of industrial disputes. But since an individual aggrieved cannot approach the Tribunal or the Labour Court directly for the redress of his grievance without the intervention of the government, it is legitimate to take the view that the remedy provided under the Act is not such as to completely oust the jurisdiction of the civil court for trial of industrial disputes. If the dispute is not an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) or within the meaning of Section 2A of the Act, it is obvious that there is no provision for adjudication of such disputes under the Act. Civil courts will be the proper forum. But where the industrial dispute is for the purpose of enforcing any right, obligation or liability under the general law or the common law and not a right, obligation or liability created under the Act, then alternative forums are there giving an election to the suitor to choose his remedy of either moving the machinery under the Act or to approach the civil court. It is plain that he can't have both. He has to choose the one or the other. But we shall presently show that the civil court will have no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate upon an industrial dispute if it concerned enforcement of certain right or liability created only under the Act. In that event civil court will have no jurisdiction even to grant a decree of injunction to prevent the threatened injury on account of the alleged breach of contract if the contract is one which is recognized by and enforceable under the Act alone."
7. Learned counsel does not dispute that the view taken in the aforesaid judgment has not been overruled but seeks to submit that the legal position has been elucidated in the case of the appellant in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. vs. Krishna Kant and Ors.-(1995) 5 SCC 75 as under:
"35. We may now summarise the principles flowing from the above discussion:
(1) Where the dispute arises from general law of contract, i.e., where reliefs are claimed on the basis of the general l
