Civil courts have jurisdiction to try suits challenging termination orders on the ground of violation of equality and principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

1. This Civil Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed by the appellants-defendants (for short, ’the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 12.1.2021 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 7, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short, ’the first appellate court’) in Civil Regular Appeal No. 4/2019, whereby the first appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 5.12.2018 passed by Addl. Civil Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan (for short, ’the trial court’) in Original Civil Suit No. 700/2009 decreeing the plaintiff’s suit for declaration and setting aside the punishment / termination order dated 9.6.2009 as also the appellate order dated 16.9.2009.

2. Facts of the case, as per the respondent-plaintiff (for short, ’the plaintiff’), are that in the year 1986, he was appointed as a Conductor with the defendants. On 15.12.2008, he was asked to discharge his duties on Jaipur Makrana route at 6.15 O’ clock. On the basis of false complaint, allegation was levelled against the plaintiff that without giving prior information and without getting the leave sanctioned, the plaintiff absented himself from duty uptil 29.12.2008, due to which the Corporation sustained revenue loss of Rs. 3894/-. It was also averred by the plaintiff that without serving copy of the charge sheet upon him and without giving him an opportunity to file his defence statement, on 13.2.2009 enquiry officer was appointed and subsequently vide order dated 9.6.2009, the plaintiff’s service was terminated. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 16.9.2009. The plaintiff filed a Civil Suit before the Trial Court. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence was led by both the parties and after hearing the arguments of both the sides, the Trial Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for declaration vide judgment and decree dated 8.10.2013. The plaintiff filed a Civil First Appeal before the First Appellate Court, which was partly allowed by First Appellate Court and accordingly the judgment and decree dated 8.10.2013 passed by the Trial Court was set-aside and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court with a direction to decide issue no. 1 and 2 in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties and after detailed analysis of the material on record. Thereafter the Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 5.12.2018 decreed the plaintiff’s suit for declaration and set-aside the punishment order dated 9.6.2009 and appellate order dated 16.9.2009. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed Civil Regular Appeal before the First Appellate Court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 12.1.2021. Hence, this second appeal has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the present dispute being an Industrial Dispute, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. However, the learned Courts below committed material illegality while decreeing the plaintiff’s suit and therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees are not legally sustainable and thus the second appeal deserves to be admitted.

4. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments:

i) Milkhi Ram Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board reported in (2021) 10 Supreme Court Cases 752

ii) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another Versus Krishna Kant and others eported in (1995) 5 Supreme Court Cases 75

iii) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. and Others Versus Zakir Hussain reported in (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 447

iv) Rajasthan SRTC and Another Versus Ugma Ram Choudhary reported in (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 61

v) Rajasthan SRTC and others Versus Khadarmal reported in (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 59

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff has defended the impugned judgments and decrees and submits that without giving an opportunity to the plaintiff