JUDGMENT :

Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This civil second appeal has been preferred against the judgement and decree dated 18.10.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for brevity, "the learned appellate Court") in Regular Civil Appeal No.139/1990 whereby, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellants/defendants (for brevity, "the defendants"), the judgement dated 25.03.1989 passed by the learned Upper Munsif Magistrate No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for brevity, "the learned trial Court") decreeing the Civil Suit No.524/88 (548/86) filed by the respondent/plaintiff (for brevity, "the plaintiff") for declaration, has been affirmed.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the defendants stating therein that while working as a permanent conductor with the defendants, he was served upon with a charge-sheet dated 30.03.1981 levelling allegation that he was found carrying 14 passengers without ticket and was issued another charge-sheet dated 27.05.1982 with similar allegation for different route. It was averred that without giving him proper opportunity of hearing and defence, vide order dated 19.02.1983, his services were terminated and the appeal preferred there against has also been dismissed vide order dated 03.01.1984. Alleging that the enquiry against him was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice, the decree as aforesaid was prayed for.

3. The defendants in their joint written statement submitted that enquiry against the plaintiff was conducted in accordance with the Standing Order. In the additional plea, it was stated that since, the plaintiff is a workman, only the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court has jurisdiction to hear the dispute and not the Civil Court.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed five issues including relief. Issue no.3 pertained to as to whether the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the suit. After recording evidence of the plaintiff as the defendants did not lead any evidence despite opportunities, the learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgement dated 25.03.1989. The civil first appeal preferred there against by the defendants has been dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide judgement and decree dated 18.10.1995.

5. While admitting the appeal, this Court framed following substantial question of law:-

"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent".

6. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that since the enquiry was conducted as per the Standing Order, the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute which could be entertained only by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. He further submits that since, the plaintiff was on probation, his services could have been terminated even without holding any enquiry. He, therefore, prays that the civil second appeal be allowed, the judgement and decree dated 18.10.1995 be quashed and set aside and the suit be dismissed.

7. Heard. Considered.

8. It is a well settled legal principle that if order of punishment passed in a departmental enquiry is sought to be challenged alleging violation of the principles of natural justice, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. A Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has, in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Bal Mukund Bairwa-(2009) 4 SCC 299, held as under:-

"36. If an employee intends to enforce his constitutional rights or a right under a statutory Regulation, the civ