Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J.

In all the Civil Second Appeals, identical questions have been raised by the appellants and are directed against the orders dated 29.03.2007, 26.02.1996, 24.11.1998, 01.02.2003 & 01.2.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Additional District Judge No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Additional District Judge No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur & Additional District Judge No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur. In all the appeals, the question posed is as to whether in these cases, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the civil suit or as to whether the nature of dispute being such, it is required to be considered under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Therefore, all these appeals with the consent of counsels are being decided by this common order. The facts of the leading case bearing S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.597 of 2007 are taken into consideration.

2. The brief facts noticed are that the appellant is a Government of Rajasthan undertaking and the respondent-plaintiff was an employee of the Appellants and has preferred a suit for declaration of termination from service as invalid which was decreed by the Court below and the appeal has been dismissed. The following issues were framed which reads as under:-

1- vk;k oknh ds fo:) izfroknhx.k }kjk okni= esa of.kZr vk/kkjksa ij ikfjr vkns'k dzekad 5318 fnuakd 27-8-2002 ds }kjk oknh ls :i;s 86]382@& :i;s olwyh dk vkns'k voS/k ,oa uSlfxZd U;kf;d fl)kUrksa ds foijhr gS\

oknh

2- vk;k fookfnr vkns'k dzekad 5318 fnuakd 22-8-2002 ds lEcU/k esa ;fn oknh ds osru ls dksbZ dVkSrh dj yh x;h gS rks oknh mDr dVkSrh dh x;h jkf'k vBkjg izfr'kr C;kt lfgr izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\

oknh

3- vk;k oknh }kjk okn dk ewY;kadu lgh ugha djus ,oa i;kZIr U;k; 'kqYd] vnk ugha djus ds dkj.k oknh dk okn fujLruh; gS\

izfroknhx.k

4- vk;k oknksrj ds pj.k la[;k&8 esa of.kZrkuqlkj orZeku okn dh lquokbZ dk bl U;k;ky; dks {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gS\

izfroknhx.k

5- vuqrks"kA

3. The Trial Court insofar as issue No.1 is concerned, held that there was violation of principles of natural justice as no notice was given to the respondent-plaintiff and accordingly decided the said Issue in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The same was assailed before the Appellate Court in appeal. The Appellate Court also after taking into consideration the facts found and noticed, held that there was violation of principles of natural justice and accordingly dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant herein. Both the Courts held that they (Civil Court) had jurisdiction though there was a serious objection all throughout by the appellants.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction on the issue and the same was required to be pursued before the Labour Court because as per the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred. Counsel contended that once the learned Trial Court has no jurisdiction then the decree passed by the Trial Court becomes a nullity and this aspect has completely been overlooked by both the Courts below by decreeing the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff. It has also been contended that there was no violation of principles of natural justice. As per the standing orders, the orders were passed and such an issue pertains to a service dispute.

5. Counsel for the appellants also relied upon earlier judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Others v. Zakir Hussain (2005) 7 SCC 447 and also a latest judgment in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Others v. Deen Dayal Sharma (2010) 6 SCC 697 where the Apex Court has held that if dismissal was contrary to the standing orders without holding any departmental enquiry then it would be adjudicated only in Industrial Tribunal and not in civil Court. Counsel for the appellants also relied upon the judgment passed by th