The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred with respect to remedies available under the Industrial Disputes Act. The court also found that the suit seeking relief against dismissal from service and reinstatement with back wages was not maintainable and that the suit for a decree of damages was barred by the provisions of the Limitation Act.

Narbdeshwar Pandey, J.

1. This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court on behalf of the defendants against the judgment and decree dated October 7, 1991 in first appeal No. 118 of 1981 (R), whereby and whereunder, the judgment of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, GIRIDIH, in Title Suit No. 20/1 of 1976/79 was set aside.

2. Briefly stated that facts of the case is that late Krishna Bihari Jaiswal (plaintift) was employed as Mechanic Grade-I under the N.C.D.C. Ltd. and allotted a quarter bearing No. 112. A case was lodged against his brother, Sadhu Sharan Jaiswal in the year, 1962 and he was dismissed from service. The said case was lodged on the allegation that the aforesaid Sadhu Sharan Jaiswal had committed a criminal trespass in the aforesaid Quarter No. 112, which was in possession of the plaintiff on allotment. According to the plaintiff, the suit against Sadhu Sharan Jaiswal was absolutely on a false ground, since Quarter No. 112 was already allotted to the plaintiff. The further case is that during pendency of the suit for eviction with respect to House No. 112 against Sadhu Sharan Jaiswal, another house No. 18/1 was arbitrarily allotted to the plaintiff by the management although House No. 112 was already allotted to him. The plaintiff, therefore, refused to occupy quarter No. 18/1, since it was found in a dilapidated condition.

3. In the meantime, a proceeding was started against the plaintiff for allegedly occupying two quarters i.e. 112 and the other 18/1 and accordingly, he was also placed under suspension. Although the plaintiff filed show cause, but the same was not accepted and ultimately two chargesheets were issued against him. The allegation relating to first charge was that on June 30, 1965 the plaintiff along with his brother stopped a jeep of the Colliery Manager for an hour and misbehaved with him. He also threatened the Manager and demanded supply of coal. According to the Manager, the aforesaid conduct of (he plaintiff constituted a misconduct on his part under sub-clauses (c), (i) and (r) of Clause 18 of the Standing Orders.

4. Another chargesheet was then submitted by the respondents on February 3, 1966 (Ext. D/19), which related to non-vacating of the quarter despite cancellation of allotment and forcible occupation without, paying any rent and subletting the quarter to a different employee, which allegedly constituted a misconduct under Clauses 18 (a) (b) (c) and 19 of the Standing Orders. Only in relation to the abovementioned charge, an enquiry was conducted and certain witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiff. The enquiring officer after considering the relevant materials submitted his report marked as Ext. C, holding the plaintiff guilty of misconduct for forceful occupation and subletting the quarter and accordingly, recommended action against him including recovery of penal rent from Jaiswal (plaintiff) for occupying Quarter No. 18/1 in addition to Quarter No. 112.

5. Thereafter, a letter dated July 11, 1966 (Ext. D/5) was issued by the Management, stating that although misconduct committed by Krishna Bihari Jaiswal was very serious and warrants punishment of dismissal from service, but in order to give him a chance to mend, the punishment for recovery of penal rent for the period in question was to be realised at the rate of Rs. 10/ per month from his salary. By the said letter the plaintiff was also directed to surrender one of the quarters, failing which necessary disciplinary action including order for dismissal from service shall be recorded. But inspite of the aforementioned letter, the plaintiff did not vacate the quarter. Therefore, the letter of dismissal from service was issued on October 6, 1966.

6. It would be relevant to mention that initially the suit was filed before the Munsif bearing Title Suit No. 287 of 1967, but the same was dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed Title Appeal No. 63 of 1971, which was disposed