Honble SIRPURKAR, J.–Leave granted.

(2). Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineer (Construction Circle) and Personnel Officer, Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project have filed this appeal to question the correctness of the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal confirming the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Ropar and Senior Sub Judge, Ropar, basically on the ground that there was a complete lack of jurisdiction in the above three Civil Courts since the issues squarely fall within the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such the remedy for the 9 respondents-workmen, who are workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, lies with the authorities thereunder and not with the Civil Court.

BASIC FACTS

(3). Nine respondents herein filed a Civil Suit before the Senior Sub Judge, Ropar for the relief of (i) declaration to the effect that the orders of their termination/retrenchment from service were illegal and (ii) that they were entitled to reinstatement in service with back-wages. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs- respondents were skilled workers and were working on the Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project (hereinafter called the Project) in various capacities such as T. Mate, Mixer Operator, Beldar, etc. for more than 5 years and, therefore, as per the Standing Orders and Rules they were regular employees of the defendants. It was alleged that the defendants did not maintain any seniority-list of the workers and various categories of services on the said Project and they arbitrarily removed the plaintiffs-respondents from service on the dates mentioned in Annexure A to the plaint by obtaining their signatures on papers under coercion and force and also forced them to accept payments. It was further alleged that while removing the plaintiffs-respondent, the defendants- appellants did not observe the seniority, meaning thereby while the juniors were retained in service, the seniors were retrenched. It was alleged that action was based on pick and choose policy and was discriminatory and amounted to victimization. It was also alleged that those workers who had completed service for 1000 days, could not have been retrenched (as was held by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Mehanga Ram v. Punjab State - Civil Writ No.718 of 1986).

(4). This claim was contested by the State of Punjab. It was firstly urged that the suit was bad as common suit could not have been filed since the cause of action of each defendant was distinct and separate. It was urged that the plaintiffs- respondents were appointed on purely temporary basis as work- charged employees and after the completion of the project, their services were validly terminated as per Rule 20(1) read with Rule 3(a) of the Certified Standing Orders for the work-charged staff on the said Project. Since the termination was complete on payment of necessary gratuity etc., there can be no cause of action and as such the present suit was not maintainable in the present form. It was also urged that notice under Section 80 CPC was not given and the suit was also barred by limitation. It was reiterated that the principle of first come last go was strictly observed since there was a regular seniority-list maintained for the Project as a whole and that there was no discrimination or victimization. On merits also the suit was opposed on the ground that since the plaintiffs- respondent were work-charged employees for a work of temporary nature, on completion of the project their services were terminated as per the Rules which governed their service conditions (the Certified Standing Orders). The following issues were framed in between the parties by the Court:

"1. Whether the impugned orders of termination retrenchment of the plaintiffs are illegal, unauthorized, ultravires and ineffective as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties? OPP

3. Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form? Opp

4. Whether no valid notice u/s 80 CPC has b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document