( 1 ) THE following questions of law arise for consideration in these revision applications filed by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation against its employees designated as conductor and dismissed from service after having found them guilty of misconduct under "discipline and Appeal Procedure for the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Employees. " The order of dismissal has been stayed by way of injunction by the different Civil Courts in exercise of power under Order 39 Rules (1) and (2) C. P. C. Q. 1. "whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit challenging the imposition of penalty of dismissal having been found guilty of misconduct under "discipline and Appeal Procedure for Gujarat State Road transport Corporation Employees Rules ?" q. 2. "whether while dismissing the suit as premature or withdrawn the Civil court has power to give direction not to give effect to prospective penal order for a specified period to enable the party to approach the Court by way of fresh suit or to avail of any other remedy ?" q. 3. "whether the Civil Court has power to grant stay of departmental inquiry under the Discipline and Appeal Procedure for the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation employees in exercise of power under Order 39 Rules (1) and (2) of Civil Procedure Code ?" q. 4. "whether the Civil Court should exercise its discretionary power in favour of the employee who has been found guilty of misconduct on the charges of corruption on some ipse dixit to undo the act of internal management at interim stage ?" question No. 1 :

( 2 ) THE principles as regards the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in relation to dispute between the employer and the employees have been well settled by series of decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court. The three Judges Bench judgment in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishnakant, reported in AIR 1995 SC 1715 after consideration of all earlier judgments, has finally recorded the relevant principles in this regard as follows :-"1. Where the dispute arises from general law of contract, i. e. , where reliefs are claimed on the basis of the general law of contract, a suit filed in Civil Court cannot be said to be not maintainable, even though such a dispute may also constitute an "industrial dispute" within the meaning of S. 2 (k) or S. 2a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. Where, however, the dispute involves recognition, observance or enforcement of any of the rights or obligations created by the Industrial Disputes Act, the only remedy is to approach the forums created by the said Act. 3. Similarly, where the dispute involves the recognition, observance or enforcement of rights and obligations created by enactments like Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act, 1946 - which can be called sister enactments to Industrial Disputes Act - and which do not provide a forum for resolution of such disputes, the only remedy shall be to approach the forums created by the Industrial Disputes Act provided they constitute industrial disputes within the meaning of S. 2 (k) and S. 2a of Industrial disputes Act or where such enactment says that such dispute shall be either treated as an industrial dispute or says that it shall be adjudicated by any of the forums created by the Industrial Disputes Act. Otherwise, recourse to Civil Court is open. 4. It is not correct to say that the remedies provided by the Industrial Disputes Act are not equally effective for the reason that access to the forum depends upon a reference being made by the appropriate Government. The power to make a reference conferred upon the Government is to be exercised to effectuate the object of the enactment and hence not unguided. The rule is to make a reference unless, of course, the dispute raised is a totally frivolous one ex facie. The power conferred is the power to refer and not the power to decide though it may be that the Government is entitled to examine w