Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P. SIVASUBRAMANIAM
Selvaraj P. - Appellant
Versus
M. D., Kattabomman Transport Corporation Ltd. & Others - Respondents
S.A. No. 432/1985
Decided On : 01 September 1998
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - MAINTAINABILITY OF SUIT - EMPLOYEE'S DISMISSAL - PROCEDURE FOR ENQUIRY - CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EMPLOYEE BY ENQUIRY OFFICER - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - RELIEF AVAILABLE IN CIVIL SUIT.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a former employee of the Kattabomman Transport Corporation, filed a suit challenging the order of his dismissal from service. He alleged that the order was unjust, improper, contrary to the rules, Principles of Natural Justice, violative of the Constitution of India, and hence invalid, inoperative, and illegal. He sought a declaration that he was deemed to continue in service with all benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was maintainable in the Civil Court as the dispute arose from the general law of contract and not exclusively from the Industrial Disputes Act. However, the court found that the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer in conducting the enquiry against the plaintiff was unfair and violative of the Principles of Natural Justice. The court also held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of reinstatement and consequential benefits as such relief was exclusively within the jurisdiction of the forums created under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was maintainable in the Civil Court in view of the availability of remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act? 2. Whether the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer in conducting the enquiry against the plaintiff was fair and in accordance with the Principles of Natural Justice? 3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of reinstatement and consequential benefits in the Civil suit?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the suit was maintainable in the Civil Court as the dispute arose from the general law of contract and not exclusively from the Industrial Disputes Act. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Kant and others, which held that a suit filed in a Civil Court cannot be said to be not maintainable even if the dispute may also constitute an "industrial dispute" within the meaning of Section 2(k) or Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, where the dispute arises from the general law of contract. 2. The court held that the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer in conducting the enquiry against the plaintiff was unfair and violative of the Principles of Natural Justice. The court found that the Enquiry Officer had cross-examined the plaintiff without examining any witnesses on the side of the management to substantiate the charges, and that the plaintiff was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself. The court relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Their Workmen and another, which held that before the delinquent is asked anything, all the evidences against him must be laid by the Management. 3. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of reinstatement and consequential benefits in the Civil suit. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mangilal Sharma, which held that a declaratory decree merely declares the right of the decree-holder and does not direct the judgment to do or to refrain from doing any particular act, and that as such there was no decree for reinstatement or payment of arrears of salary and therefore the executing Court cannot issue any process for the said purpose as that would be going outside or beyond the decree.
Final Decision: The court allowed the plaintiff's appeal and declared that the order of dismissal was null and void and illegal. However, the court limited the relief to a declaration only and did not grant the plaintiff's prayer for reinstatement and consequential benefits.
K. P. SIVASUBRAMANIAM, J.
This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned 11 Additional Judge, City, Civil Court, Madras in Appeal Suit No. 44 of 1982 confirming that of the learned Assistant Judge, City Civil Court Madras in Original Suit No. 1551 of 1976. The Plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in the above Second Appeal. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff, being a former employee of the Kattabomman Transport Corporation, Nagercoil praying for declaration that the order of dismissal dated December 31, 1974, as confirmed by the Managing Director on October 24, 1975 is unjust, improper, contrary to the rules, Principles of Natural Justice, violative of Constitution of India, and hence invalid, inoperative and illegal and that the plaintiff was deemed to continue in service with all benefits. According to the plaintiff, he entered into service as a Conductor under the Tamil Nadu State Transport Department in 1963 and he was carrying on with his work faithfully and diligently and the plaintiff was originally : serving at Madras and was transferred to Nagercoil branch of the Transport in 1973. From January, 1974, the plaintiff became an employee under the first defendant and due to his ill-health he requested the authorities to post : him in duties other than line duty namely, Conductor. The Managing Director considered his representation and posted him to duties other than line duty and the plaintiff was working in the Reservation Office in the Municipal Bus Stand and the plaintiff was posted to other duty by the Operation Manager. But the Depot Superintendent out of ill will and grudge and personal animosity towards him had posted him to other duty. The plaintiff would further state that by about April 1973 he was suspended in an arbitrary and unjust manner under oral orders of the authorities, since the authorities thought that he was responsible for the strike and as such the defendant was determined to ruin his career. In spite of his protest, he was asked to take charge as a conductor. The plaintiff would further state that on and from May 30, 1974, the rates of the tickets were enhanced and were brought to effect and the plaintiff was compelled to take up the duty as conductor in bus route 12-A from market to Nagercoil and on and from May 30, 1974 the route was extended to Suchindram. Therefore in view of the changed route and with the revision of ticket fares he got very much confused and further as he was out of; touch with the duties of conductor, he found it difficult and he would also further state that in the said 12-A route closing of ticket entries had to be effected at Nagercoil at stage No. 2 by the time keeper. Since the Route was extended beyond Nagercoil and upto Suchindram, the stage had to be closed by the conductor himself on and from May 30, 1974 and the plaintiff was not able to realise his new position. According to the plaintiff, there was also heavy rain on that particular day and that the bus was diverted from route No. 12-A to the route of 12-D, and as conductor, the plaintiff was bound to issue a 45 paise ticket and not 40 paise ticket from Kurunthankode to Nagercoil. On May 30, 1974, when he began to issue tickets at the rate of 45 paise, there was a quarrel by the passengers with the plaintiff. He was working on down journey form Market to Suchindram and at about 6 a.m. he was in a perplexed and confused state due to the reasons stated above and due to the diversion of the route and enhanced fares it took time for the passengers also to realise the same and the passengers had become restless and began to abuse the plaintiff and also to threaten him. In the midst of the confusion, the plaintiff forgot to close stage No. 2 and issued tickets at Nagercoil also and the bus was proceeding-in-between stage No. 2 and stage No. 1. Normally the stage should have been closed by the Time Keeper. The plaintiff on coming to realise that he had not closed Stage No. 2 and has
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
