The Act is a special legislation creating liability and providing a special forum of remedy, thereby excluding the jurisdiction of the civil court.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order, dated 22-1-1992 passed on issue No. 4 in O. S. No. 679 of 1988 by the III Additional Munsiff at Hubli as to civil courts jurisdiction to entertain the suit which will have to be decided on adducing evidence along with other issues, but not as a preliminary issue.

( 2 ) FACTS in brief are that the petitioner is E. S. I. Corporation. Therespondent-plaintiff filed a suit against the E. S. I. Corporation-defendant praying that the Employee's State Insurance Act is not applicable to their factory and sought a relief of injunction against the E. S. I. Corporation restraining them from taking any action against the plaintiff. It is contended by the plaintiff that only 19 employees are working from the starting of the factory and the E. S. I. Act will be made applicable only when 20 or more persons employed. The petitioner-defendant filed the written statement and they have specifically contended that in view of Section 75 (3) of the e. S. I. Act, the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The court has framed issue No. 4 as to whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit or not. The petitioner has requested the court to try issue No. 4 as preliminary issue. The court after hearing the parties and on considering the material on record has held that since the plaintiff has challenged the applicability of the Act to his factory, i. e. , whether the Act is applicable or not requires the evidence, "therefore, mere pleadings of the parties, it cannot be said that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and this issue will be considered along with other issues after recording the evidence of both parties," and rejected the request of the petitioner to decide issue No. 4 as preliminary issues. Hence, this revision petition by the pctitioner-defendant-E. S. I. Corporation.

( 3 ) BOTH the counsel appearing for the parties have submitted that the questionwhether the civil court has jurisdiction or not may be decided by this court instead of remanding the matter to the lower court to decide it, in order to avoid prolongation of the litigation and to give quietous to the vexed question often arises.

( 4 ) FACTS are few and simple. The plaintiff has challenged the action of the E. S. I. Corporation as if the Act is not applicable to its factory by Filing a suit seeking an order of injunction restraining the defendant-corporation from taking any action against them under the Act. It is the further case of the plaintiff that at no time they had engaged more than 19 persons in the factory, as such, the Act is not applicable and it cannot be made applicable to them. The petitioner-corporation has contended that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for these matters, viz. , the applicability of the Act or otherwise can be agitated under the forum constituted by the Act, which has created the liability and it gives special remedy which will have to be pursued. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that where the liabil ity not existing in common law, is created by the special statute which at the same time gives the special and particular remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by the statute to be followed and, it is not open to the party to pursue any other remedy much less the suit in civil court.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff referring to Section 9 of thec. P. C. contended that the civil court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits which arc of civil nature. The mere conferment of special jurisdiction on a tribunal in respect of the said matter docs not in itself exclude the jurisdiction of the civil court. In support of his submission, he has relied on the following decisions: 1. Dhulabai v State of M. P. , AIR 1969 SC 78; and 2. Pabbojan Tea Co. v Dy. Commissioner, Lakhimpur, AIR 1968 SC 271.

( 6 ) I have gone through the judgments cited by the respondent