Point in Issue :
Whether Court having no jurisdiction to decide the dispute, can pass order granting interim relief?

S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.— Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and other - appellants-original defendants have approached this Court by way of this second appeal challenging the operative, part of the decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2002 by the District Judge, Rajkot dated 21.09.2006 only to the extent that it contains direction to the appellants to maintain status-quo regarding service of the original plaintiff till he exhausts the alternative remedy, on the ground that said direction could not have been passed when the Court had upheld the contention that dispute of such nature was beyond the purview of Civil Court and party was relegated to the remedy.

3. On 28.02.2008, this Court (Coram : R.H. Shukla, J.) issued notice to the respondent, which was made returnable on 18.03.2008 with a clear understanding that notice was being issued for hearing and finally disposing of the appeal. Both the Counsels have agreed that the second appeal could be decided and disposed of finally looking to the limited controversy in the matter and the matter could be proceeded with on the basis of settled legal proposition of law without elaborate referring to the other documents of records and proceedings.

4. Facts in brief deserve to be set out as under for appreciating the controversy in the matter.

5. The plaintiff-an employee of the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation filed Regular Civil Suit No. 291 of 1996 for declaration and permanent injunction against his order of dismissal, which was result of Departmental Inquiry in the incident of an accident, which has resulted into death of one child. The plaintiff was driver of the bus. The suit was decreed on 09.03.2000 and, therefore, being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, present appellants preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2002 in the Court of District Judge, Rajkot inter alia on the ground that in view of the established provisions of law and the decision of the Apex Court, the dispute of such a nature could be examined only by the competent forum namely Industrial/Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the civil Court is ousted. The Appellate Court, accepted the contention and allowed the appeal vide order dated 21.09.2006. However, while, allowing the appeal, the Appellate Court directed the present appellants to maintain status-quo with regard to service of the original plaintiff-bus driver till he exhausts the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid direction of the Appellate Court, the appellants have preferred present second appeal. As it is stated hereinabove, with the consent of Counsel of both the side, the matter was taken up for final disposal today.

6. Shri Raval, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that when the first Appellate Court had accepted the contention with regard to jurisdiction, it ought not to have issued any direction with regard to maintaining status-quo as when the Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter, it could not have given any interim relief and on that basis, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

7. Shri Shelat, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-original plaintiff has submitted that the jurisdictional aspect could be said to be not yet crystallized in view of the decision in case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa, reported in 2008 (8) Scale p. 424. However, he candidly submitted that this contention could have been raised only when the plaintiff had filed any cross appeal. In the instant case, as there is no cross appeal preferred by the original plaintiff, he cannot advance this submission. He submitted that the present respondent - original plaintiff has put in long service as a Driver and he is at the fate end of his service and the order of the first Appellate Court is merely enabling him to approach the forum under Industrial Disputes Act so that