1. - This revision petition has been filed against the Order dated 25/02/2015 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan in civil suit No. 319/2014 whereby, the said Court dismissed the application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioner-defendant.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner-defendant, wherein, it is stated that the plaintiff was appointed as Manager in the petitioner's Bank in the year 2007. Subsequently, the plaintiff was promoted as Senior Manager and Assistant Vice President in the petitioner's Bank. On 19/02/2013, an unofficial investigation was conducted in the absence of the plaintiff and without giving any opportunity of being heard, the petitioner-defendant was served upon a suspension order on 05/03/2014. In the said Order, no reason whatsoever was mentioned therefor and three penalties were inflicted on the plaintiff-respondent. Thereafter, the plaintiff's services were terminated vide letter dated 31/07/2014 without assigning any reasons. The plaintiff-respondent could not be penalised on the same ground again. In this regard, the plaintiff took a plea of Double Jeopardy. The plaintiff has also challenged Rule 3.5 of Bank Staff Rules based on which the services of the plaintiff were terminated on the ground that the said rule is only applicable to the employees who are on probation and not to the regular employees. Therefore, the said Rule is void ab initio as per Section 123 of the Contract Act since the said Rule is against the public policy. The following prayer was sought by the plaintiff in the plaint:-

"d& ;g fd okn okfnuh fo:) izfroknh fMdzh fd;k tkdj izfroknh }kjk tkjh vkns'k fnukad 31-7-2014 fujLr fd;k tk, rFkk izfroknh dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkos fd og okfnuh dks iqu% lsok esa cgky djsaA [k& ;g fd izfroknh cSad ds LVkQ :Yl ds fu;e 3-5 dks 'kwU; ,oa fu"izHkkoh (uy ,.M oksbZM) ?kksf"kr fd;k tk,A x& ;g fd okn okfnuh fo:) izfroknh fMdzh fd;k tkdj izfroknh dks tfj;s LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk }kjk izkcUn fd;k tkos fd izfroknh okfnuh ds in ij fdlh vU; O;fDr dks fu;qfDr iznku ugha djsa rFkk mDr in fjDr j[ksa ,oa fu;qfDr vkns'k fnukad 31-7-2014 ls iqu% fu;qfDr fn;s tkus rd dk osru okfnuh dks fnyk;k tkosA"

3. The petitioner-defendant filed a written statement and denied the allegation made in the plaint.

4. The petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent is not maintainable since the plaintiff and the defendant were having master-servant relationship and the contract of service between them is specifically barred under Section 10 (b) and 14 (a) (c) and 38 (3) (c) of the Specific Relief Act. It is also stated in the application that in respect of appointment, termination and back wages, the civil Court cannot pass the decree for declaration and permanent injunction. The defendant-Bank is a private Bank hence, no employee can ask for reinstatement. Only those persons, who come under the definition of 'workmen', can take the benefit under I.D. Act. The defendant-Bank Staff Rules are not statutory rules and the same are mere contract between the Bank and its employees.

5. A reply to the said application was filed by the plaintiff-respondent wherein, it is stated that the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant is not that of a master and servant and is governed by the Bank Staff Rules. The defendant Bank is legal body incorporated under the Bank Rules and Regulations Act, 1949. The Reserve Bank of India is the controlling authority of all the Banks therefore, the defendant Bank is governed by the legal provisions. The plaintiff does not come under the preview of Industrial Dispute Act since the plaintiff is not a workman.

6. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court rejected the application under Order 7, Rule 11