The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide disputes related to employee benefits, and that the findings of fact recorded by the lower courts should be honored and not interfered with unless there is perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error.

ORDER

1. The appellant- defendant-RSRTC (hereafter 'the RSRTC') has preferred this second appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 8-8-2019 passed by the Additional District Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in first appeal No.3/2014 dismissing appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 16-12-2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in civil suit No.39/2012 whereby and whereunder suit has been partly decreed and plaintiff has been declared entitled for benefits of selection grade on completion of service of 9 years on 22-1-1995 and on completion of 18 years service on 22-1-2004 and further directed for revision of pay and arrears of salary.

2. Facts as culled out from the record are that respondent- plaintiff (hereafter 'the plaintiff') filed a suit claiming therein that he was appointed on the post of Conductor on 27-4-1985 and was given permanent status vide order No.636 dated 22-1-1986. Pursuant to Circular dated 25-1-1992 issued by the Finance Department of Government of Rajasthan, which had been adopted and followed by RSRTC vide order dated 27-4-1993 for grant of selection grade on completion of service of 9, 18 and 27 years, defendants have not provided such benefits to plaintiff. When the request of plaintiff was finally declined on 10-1-2012, the plaintiff filed the civil suit claiming benefits of selection grade. Arrears and interest thereon was also prayed for.

3. Defendants filed written statement and opposed the claim of plaintiff on the ground that several charge sheets were issued to plaintiff and he was remained under suspension and salary of suspension period was forfeited. Thus service of plaintiff was not clean and satisfactory, therefore, he was not entitled for benefits of selection grade. It was also alleged that suit was barred by limitation and that civil court had no jurisdiction.

4. On basis of pleadings of parties, six issues were framed. Plaintiff examined himself as Pw.1. In rebuttal RSRTC produced one witness as Dw.1, and exhibited documents. The trial court considered the plaintiff's case on merits and decided the issue No.1, regarding entitlement of plaintiff for selection grade on completion of service of 9 and 18 years, in favour of plaintiff and the issue No.2, regarding interest on arrears, was decided partially in favour of plaintiff. Issue No.3 regarding jurisdiction of civil court or Industrial Tribunal was decided in favour of plaintiff holding that action of defendant of non issue of benefits of selection grade is arbitrary and was held against the principles of natural justice. Issue No.4, regarding limitation of suit was decided against defendant as the action of non issuing selection grade was a continuing cause. Issue No.5, regarding valuation was also decided against defendant. Consequently the suit was decreed.

5. On filing first appeal, the appellate court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court, therefore dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment passed by the trial court. Hence, this second appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused impugned judgments passed by courts below.

7. Counsel for appellant has vehemently argued that disputes raised by the respondent plaintiff employee for granted of benefits of selection scale, could have been tried by the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain and decide such disputes.

8. The issue of jurisdiction of civil court or Industrial Tribunal has been considered by this court in case of RSRTC Vs. Ramesh Kumar [2008 WLC (Raj.) UC 607] and held that plaintiff sought relief in respect of grant of selection scale or withholding of increment as a measure of punishment or recovery etc., which do not fall within the purview of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This court after elaborate discussion of nature and disputes as described in the Ind