The main legal point established in the judgment is that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit related to enforcement of rights created under the Industrial Disputes Act, and a delinquent employee has no absolute right to be represented by an advocate at the domestic enquiry unless specifically conferred by law.

( 1 ) THE defendant has filed this appeal challenging the interlocutory order of injunction granted by the civil court restraining the defendant from proceeding with a domestic enquiry. Shorn of details the bare facts are as follows :

( 2 ) THE respondent herein is an employee working under the appellant. On April 19, 1993, he was charge-sheeted for wrongly certifying sodium chloride as sodium sulphate, as a result of which the employer claims to have sustained heavy loss. The General Manager of one of the units of the defendant company was appointed as enquiry officer. On May 4, 1993, notice of enquiry was issued to the plaintiff-respondent. In response, on May 19, 1993, the plaintiff appeared and sought permission to be represented by a lawyer to defend him in the enquiry. The permission was declined. Thereupon, the present suit was filed with the following prayer.

( 3 )

(a) Declaring that the enquiry instituted, vide letter dated May 4, 1993, and the proceedings of the enquiry dated May 19, 1993, and further proceedings of the enquiry as null and void. or direct the defendant company to permit the plaintiff to engage an advocate to assist him in the enquiry as requested by him, vide letter dated May 19, 1993.

(b) Direct the defendants to hold an enquiry in respect of the charges alleged against the plaintiff by appointing independent enquiry officer and proper management representative and in accordance with law.

( 4 ) ALONG with the plaint an application for temporary injunction was also moved. The court below has by the order under challenge stayed the enquiry. By the same order the court below has granted permission to the defendant to move the court for the variation of the order of the event, it is prepared to permit the plaintiff to engage an advocate to defend him. The defendant has filed the appeal challenging the order.

( 5 ) I have heard the respective counsel at length. At the end of the argument it was felt that the view that might be taken by this court may prejudice the plaintiff, at the suggestion of the court, the defendant offered to tender the witnesses again so as to cross examine the witnesses already examined in the presence of the plaintiff, again provided the plaintiff withdrew the suit. But, the plaintiff was not willing to accept the offer. Hence, the appeal is being disposed of on merits.

( 6 ) SHRI Kasturi, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted at the outset that a suit as the one initiated itself is not competent and in such a suit, the granting of the order in the nature of one under challenge is totally illegal. Shri Kiran Kumar strenuously opposed the contention. Since the parties Joined the issue on this question, I will examine the said contention at the outset.

( 7 ) TO begin with, I will examine first the Industrial Disputes Act. A perusal of various provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1948, shows that very extensive machinery has been provided for settlement and adjudication of industrial disputes. So far as the Karnataka State is concerned by virtue of section 10 (4-A) of the Act any aggrieved individual has recourse to the Labour Court or to the Industrial Tribunal for the adjudication of an industrial dispute which involves the termination of his services. Further, with the intervention of the Government the dispute which comes within the meaning of sections 2 (k) and 2-A can be referred to the adjudication of the tribunal or the Labour Court, as the case may be. If the enforcement of the right that the worker is seeking is one that is conferred on him under the common law then, he can have recourse to the civil court, for the enforcement of the said right, but if on the contrary it is a right created in him under the industrial law then he will have to seek redressal of the grievance before the forum created under the said law because obviously he is not enforcing a common law right but a right that is created in him under a special enactment. But for the enacting o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document