Civil courts lack jurisdiction over employment disputes governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, necessitating resolution in designated forums.

JUDGMENT :

J.C. Doshi, J.

1. As in both the second appeals, the impugned judgment and decree is common, one and the same, with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Second Appeal No.30 of 2001 is filed against the judgment and order dated 26.4.2000 passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Morbi in Civil Misc. Appeal No.5 of 1998, whereby the learned appellate Court modified the judgment and decree dated 31.12.1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Wankaner in Regular Civil Suit No.57 of 1991 to the extent of allowing the cross objection-cum-appeal by directing the defendant Panchayat to pay up the entire amount of salary with effect from impugned order dated 6.5.1991 till today within a period of three months from the date of this judgment.

2.1. Second Appeal No.29 of 2001 is filed against the judgment and order dated 26.4.2000 passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Morbi in RCA No.1 of 1998, whereby the learned appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree dated 31.12.1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Wankaner in Regular Civil Suit No.57 of 1991.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

3.1 The plaintiff has been appointed as a permanent servant of defendant Panchayat as a House Master (Grahpati) for Schedule Caste Kumar Chhatralay, which has been running by State of Gujarat Social Welfare Department, Gandhinagar and the same has been handled by the present defendant Panchayat. That defendant Panchayat following necessary procedure for advertisement of House Master, received 40 applications and thereafter completing the formality of viva test, issued appointment letter to present plaintiff on the vacant permanent post of Grahpati at Wankaner on the fixed monthly pay for Rs.800/- with effect from 31.8.1989. That initially plaintiff was given appointment letter for a period of 29 days, but he has been continuing in service without any break and therefore, he becomes entitled to the rights of a permanent employee. The plaintiff has been performing his duties regularly honestly and without any stigma. Yet defendant Panchayat passed a movement order on 6.5.91 which was neither served to the plaintiff nor he was removed from service and even after the said movement order, he has been continuing in service till today. Therefore, the plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.57 of 1991 to declare that the impugned movement order dated 6.5.91 null & void and not binding to him and further defendant Panchayat be directed to pay salary from the date of said order and all allowances permissible to him from the date of his movement order. Defendant Panchayat has filed it's reply before the Trial Court vide Ex.13.

3.2 The learned trial Court framed issued vide Ex.76 and after recording the evidence of both the parties and hearing the arguments he recorded the judgment and passed the judgment and decree as stated above in favour of the plaintiff.

3.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and decree, the defendant Panchayat has preferred RCA No.1/1998 and the plaintiff has preferred civil Misc. Appeal No.5/1998.

3.4 The learned appellate Court vide order dated 26.4.2000, has been pleased to dismiss RCA No.1 of 1998, however, allowed Civil Misc. Appeal No.5 of 1998 in the form the cross objection- cum-appeal of the plaintiff and directed the defendant Panchayat to pay up the entire amount of salary with effect from impugned order dated 6.5.1991 till today within a period of three months from the date of this judgment.

4. Second Appeal Nos.30 of 2001 and 29 of 2001 are admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between the employee and employer ?

2. Whether the Court below has committed serious error of law in entertaining the dispute between the employee and the employer even though earlier emp