The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and adjudicate the matter is clearly barred by Section 19(2) of the Act.

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J: The appellants, who are the legal representatives of the 1st defendant, call in question legality of the judgment rendered by the Civil Judge(Sr.Dn.), Bhadrayathi allowing the appeal filed by the 1st respondent-plaintiff and remanding the suit to the Trial Court for disposal.

2. Background facts in nutshell are as follows:

The appellant - Javaraiah, preferred an application under Section 22 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ('Act' for short) against the 1st respondent - B. Umesh, claiming compensation for the employment injuries sustained by him while working at the sugarcane crusher unit run by the 1st respondent. The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation ('Commissioner' for short) passed an award entitling Javaraiah to receive compensation amount of Rs.92,085/- with interest at 6% p.a and also Rs.1,500/- as penalty. The 1st respondent - B. Umesh was ordered to pay the amount within 30 days of the award dated 27.07.1996. The 1st respondent filed a Misc. petition before the Commissioner to set-aside the said award. The said petition was dismissed. The 1st respondent filed W.P. 1876/1998 questioning the award/order. The writ petition was dismissed on 12.03.1998 inter-alia holding that, the remedy lies in filing an appeal under Section 30 of the Act. Liberty was reserved to file an appeal. The writ appeal filed thereafter, failed.

3. 1st respondent instituted a suit in the Trial Court by stating that neither the Commissioner nor this Court noticed the important ingredients as to whether the defendant is a workman or not and whether the country sugarcane crusher comes under Section 2(1)(n) of Act and that, the Commissioner has acted against the principles of natural justice. It was further stated that, Court has jurisdiction to try the suit as the status of a person can be declared under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act. The relief prayed was, to declare that the plaintiff is not the employer, the defendant is not a workman, working in the crusher and the award is nullity and not binding on the plaintiff. A further prayer to grant permanent injunction from executing the said award was also sought. Tahsildar - Shimoga, the executing authority was subsequently impleaded as the 2 defendant.

The 1st defendant filed written statement, wherein reference was made to the proceedings that had taken place before the Commissioner and in the writ petition/writ appeal. It was contended that, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the bar under Section 19(2) of the Act; that the suit is hit by principles of res judicata; that the suit has no cause of action and is also not maintainable.

4. The Trial Court framed the following issues:

i) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is not a workman of the plaintiff and consequently, the plaintiff is not the employer of the defendant?

ii) Whether the plaintiff proves that the judgment and decree passed by Labour Officer and Workmen's Compensation Commissioner under KAPK: KC.38/1995 dated 27.07.1996 is nullity and not binding on the plaintiff?

iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

iv) Whether the defendant proves that this Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the matter as contended in para 11 of the written statement?

v) Whether the Court fee paid is insufficient?

vi) What order or decree?

Issue-IV was treated as a preliminary issue. Considering the case of the parties and the written arguments filed, the Trial Court held that, the suit is not maintainable and it has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The suit was dismissed accordingly.

5. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiff in the Court below. The following points were raised for determination:

i) Whether appellant/plaintiff establishes that the Trial Court has erred in holding that it has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit by dismissing his suit?

ii) Whether judgment and decree of the Trial Court calls for interference by this Court?

iii) What orde