P. RAMACHANDRA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THE defendant is the appellant. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit fora declaration that the order of removal of the plaintiff from service is illegal, and for a consequential relief of reinstatement into service together with a sum of rs. 12,500/- being the arrears of salary from 1-7-1978 till the date of the suit and lor future salaries.

( 2 ) THE respondent-plaintiff was appointed on 7-2-1968 as Gangman in the engineering Department of the appellant-Port Trust. After he worked for about 10 years, he was directed to undergo medical examination by an order dated 10-5-1978 along with others. He was declared medically unfit on 26-6-1978 by the appellant and his services were terminated with effect from the said date on the ground that he was suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis. In fact he had not suffered from it at any time. Therefore he approached King George hospital, Visakhapatnam and the District Tuberculosis Control Hospital, visakhapatnam subjecting himself for medical tests and both the hospitals issued certificates that he had not been suffering from Tuberculosis. On the strength of the said certificates, the petitioner filed a representation to the appellant, but as no action was taken, he filed the suit.

( 3 ) IN the written statement, the appellant while denying the material allegations contained in the plaint disputed the plea of the respondent that he was not suffering from tuberculosis. It is also asserted that the suit is not maintainable as the Civil Court has no jurisdiction; the Chairman of the appellant Port Trust cannot represent the Port Trust; the first respondent had not issued the Statutory notice ascontempla ted under Section 120of the Madras (sic. Major) Port Trusts Act, 1963 and that the suit is barred by limitation.

( 4 ) THE trial Court framed 6 issues. The respondent examined 2 witnesses including himself as P. W. I and marked Exs. A-1 to A-4; while the appellant examined two witnesses including a clerk working in the Medical Department of the appellant-Port Trust as D. W. 1. On a consideration of the evidence adduced in the case, the lower Court decreed the suit as prayed for Hence the appeal.

( 5 ) SRI Koka Srinivasa Murthy, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Port Trust chiefly contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief of reinstatement and back wages.

( 6 ) VISAKHAPATNAM Port Trust was constituted under the provisions of the major Port Trusts Act, 1963. Regulations were made under Section 28 of the visakhapatnam Port Trust Act. Regulation 14 (1) of the Visakhapatnam Port trust Employees (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 1964 provides for regularisation of the employees. Therefore, if the respondent has got any grievance, he must work out hi s remed ies under the Industrial Disputes act.

( 7 ) REGULATIONS framed by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 28 of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust Act are Statutory in nature. The powers of the statutory bodies are controlled and regulated by such Statutes. It is often said that the Regulations are made to restrict the power of Statutory Authorities and limit their unbridled powers. These Publ ic Corporations are often described as the third arm of the Government, since the executive functions of the government are exercised through these Agencies. Therefore, these regulations have the force of law binding on the Corporation, its Officers, servants and the members of the public who come within the sphere of its operations, and as such the Regulations are not mere agreements or contracts between the parties. Therefore, the main question that falls for consideration is whether in case of violation of such a Regulation, whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to redress the grievance of the plaintiff or whether he should approach the forum under the Industrial Disputes Act. Industrial dispute is defined under Section 2 (k) as follows:- "industrial dispute mean

Click Here to Read the rest of this document