Estoppel can prevent a party from raising an issue if they have previously acquiesced to a different forum for dispute resolution. The appropriate forum for dispute resolution must be determined based on the nature of the dispute and the relevant legal provisions.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. D.M. Devnani with learned Advocate Ms. Janaki Bhatt on behalf of the appellant and learned Advocate Mr. A.K. Clerk on behalf of the opponents no. 1.1 and 1.2.

2. At this stage, it would be relevant to mention that opponents no. 2 to 46 who were original defendants in the Civil Suit though have been joined as party respondents in the first appeal and whereas, in spite of service, either they have not engaged a learned Advocate and in some case as in case of respondent no. 13, the said respondent is stated to have expired, yet, in spite of the said position, more particularly, in view of the final decision which would be taken by this Court, this Court deems it expedient to hear the first appeal even in absence of anyone appearing on behalf of the private respondents or in absence of legal heirs of those private respondents who have unfortunately expired in the interregnum.

3. By way of this appeal the appellant has assailed judgment and order passed by the learned Court no. 13 City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 63 of 1995 dated 31.03.2003. Learned City Civil Court vide the impugned judgment and order had inter alia declared that the plaintiff was entitled to get promotion in the grade of inspector with defendant no. 1-appellant herein with effect from 01-05-1971 and in the grade of Assistant Senior Inspector 01.02.1991 and further direction for fixing of seniority and emoluments of salary for the said period was also directed. The learned Trial Court had also directed payment of interest on the arrears amount at the rate of 12% from the date of filing of the suit within two months till the date of realization.

3.1. It appears that at the time of admission of the first appeal, this Court had inter alia directed the appellant to calculate the arrears that could be payable to the appellant and whereas, an affidavit had been submitted by the appellant in Civil Application No. 4354 of 2003 in the present first appeal inter alia submitting calculation for the difference which could be payable to the respondent no. 1 between April 1984 - April 1996. It was also submitted by the appellant-Bank that since records prior to April 1984 was not available with the appellant-Bank therefore, difference of salary for the said period had not been computed.

3.2. It also appears that as per the appellant, the difference that could be payable from 1984 to 1996 was Rs. 1,63,273/- and whereas, it also appears that since the calculation prior to 1984 could not be placed therefore, a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 23.03.2006 had directed the appellant-applicant to deposit an ad hoc amount of Rs. 3 lakhs and whereas, upon depositing, the said amount was directed to be deposited in Fixed Deposit and whereas, the interest accruing thereupon was directed to be paid to the respondent no. 1- original plaintiff.

3.3. It further appears that after the said amount had been deposited, the respondent no. 1-original plaintiff and later on upon his demise his legal heirs i.e. respondent no. 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 are receiving the amount of interest accrued on the amount of Rs. 3lakhs as per the order of this Court.

4. Learned Advocate D.M. Devnani on behalf of the appellant has assailed the impugned decision only on the ground that the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to try the dispute raised by the original plaintiff and whereas, the Labour Court was the right forum which the original plaintiff ought to have approached. Learned Advocate Mr. Devnani would submit that since the impugned order is itself without jurisdiction, the same requires to be interfered with.

5. As against the same, learned Advocate Mr. A.K. Clerk on behalf of the respondent no. 1.1 to 1.3 would submit that such a contention could not be taken by the appellant, more particularly, according to the learned Advocate Mr. Clerk, the respondent is estopped from raising such an issue before this Court. Learned Advocate Mr. Clerk wo