Back
2002 Supreme(Cal) 583
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ARUN KUMAR MITRA, J.
Kesoram Rayon & Kesoram Industries Ltd.
Versus
Pran Ballav Das & another
C.O. No. 1123 of 2002
Decided on : 4.9.2002
P.K. Das, Jiban Ratan Chatterjee, A. Chatterjee & S.K. Basu for the Petitioner.
S.P. Roy Chowdhury, Sadananda Ganguly, Prallad Ghosh & Soma Roy Chowdhury for the Respondents.
The jurisdiction to adjudicate an industrial dispute lies with the Industrial Tribunal and not with the Civil Court. However, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute that is not an industrial dispute.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - JURISDICTION - CIVIL COURT - INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - SECTION 9 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - SECTION 2A OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - The dispute between the employee and the employer is an industrial dispute, and the jurisdiction to adjudicate such a dispute lies with the Industrial Tribunal and not with the Civil Court. However, if the dispute is not an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) or 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, then the Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant company, filed a suit in the Civil Court seeking a declaration that his date of birth is 10.12.1947, a declaration that the date of his superannuation is 10.12.2005, and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant company from superannuating him on 28.2.2002. The defendant company contended that the suit was not maintainable as the dispute was an industrial dispute and the jurisdiction to adjudicate such a dispute lies with the Industrial Tribunal and not with the Civil Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the dispute between the employee and the employer is an industrial dispute, and the jurisdiction to adjudicate such a dispute lies with the Industrial Tribunal and not with the Civil Court. However, the Court also held that if the dispute is not an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) or 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, then the Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. In the present case, the Court found that the dispute was not an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) or 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, and therefore, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.
Issues: 1. Whether the dispute between the employee and the employer is an industrial dispute? 2. Whether the jurisdiction to adjudicate an industrial dispute lies with the Industrial Tribunal or the Civil Court? 3. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute that is not an industrial dispute?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the dispute between the employee and the employer is an industrial dispute, and the jurisdiction to adjudicate such a dispute lies with the Industrial Tribunal and not with the Civil Court. However, the Court also held that if the dispute is not an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) or 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, then the Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.
Final Decision: The Court held that the dispute between the employee and the employer is an industrial dispute, and the jurisdiction to adjudicate such a dispute lies with the Industrial Tribunal and not with the Civil Court. However, the Court also held that if the dispute is not an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) or 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, then the Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. In the present case, the Court found that the dispute was not an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) or 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, and therefore, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.
ARUN KUMAR MITRA, J.
1. Challenging the order dated 11.4.2002 passed by the learned District Judge, Hooghly in Misc. Appeal No. 24 of 2002 arising out of order no. 3 dated 22.2.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) First Court, Hooghly Sadar in Title Suit No. 34 of 2002 (Pran Ballav Das vs. Kesoram Rayon & Kesoram Industries Ltd.) this revisional application has been preferred.
2. The fact of the case and/or the context in which this revisional application has been moved is inter alia as follows:-
The opposite party no. 1 being the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction being Title Suit No. 34 of 2002 before the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) First Court at Hooghly with the following prayers:-
(a) A declaration declaring that the plaintiff was born on 10.12.1947.
(b) A declaration that the date of superannuation of the plaintiff is 10.12.2005.
(c) A declaration that the letter of superannuation of defendant no. 2 dated 30.11.2001 and the letter dated 9.2.2002 relating to such superannuation is illegal, inoperative, fraudulent, void, ultra vires having no binding force upon the plaintiff.
(d) A permanent injunction restraining the defendants from superannuating the plaintiff on 28.2.2002.
(e) Decree for all cost of the suit.
(f) Such other relief as in law and equity as the plaintiff may be entitled to.
3. In the plaint, it has been contended by the plaintiff that he is an employee under the defendant company in its fabrication department at its factory at village and post office Nayasarai, P.S. Magra, District Hooghly.
4. The plaintiff joined the defendant company as a Clerk (apprentice) under the provisions of Apprenticeship Act of 1961 on 6.3.1980. On successful completion of the apprenticeship period, the petitioner was employed as an Extra Badli worker on and from 4.2.1981 (having Card No. EB-37, Folder No. 1252), at the company unit at Nayasarai in the District of Hooghly. The plaintiff is a Commerce Graduate. He submitted all requisite documents with regard to his educational qualification, proof of age (date of birth etc.) at the time of his employment. The petitioner was made permanent on and from 1.11.1983. On 4.2.1981, the petitioner declared his date of birth as 10.12.1947 and filled up ESI form and PF form and became entitled to ESI benefit on and from 4.2.1981.
5. According to the plaintiff, he did not fill up any declaration form on 1.11.1983 but one form was filled up by the administration on 1.11.1983 at the back of the plaintiff after getting his signature before hand. The plaintiff states and submits that he was born on 10.12.1947 and as per the standing order he is to retire on 10.12.2005 that is practically effective on 31.12.2005.
6. The plaintiff categorically states that he joined the service of the defendant company at the age of 33 years on 4.2.1981. All the records of the company as also the Employees' State Insurance Corporation recorded the date of birth of the plaintiff as 10.12.1947. The plaintiff in support of his such claim has annexed the following documents to the plaint:-
(i) Pass certificate of primary final examination 1958-59
(ii) Admit Card for the Higher Secondary Examination, 1967
(iii) Certificate of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education for the year 1965 and all showing 10.12.1947.
7. The plaintiff received the superannuation notice dated 30.11.2001 from the defendant no.2 (opposite party no.2 herein) asking the plaintiff to retire from the employment with effect from 28.2.2002 on the ground of plaintiffs attaining the age of superannuation on 3.2.2002 as per the records of the defendant company. The plaintiff made a representation in writing dated 29.1.2002 before the General Manager (Personnel) (opposite party no.2 herein) through which the plaintiff made a request to recall and/or withdraw the notice served on the plaintiff and the plaintiff stated in that representation that he will attain his 58 years on 10.1.2005 and no
