Civil suit filed against order of suspension not barred.

S.S. Subramani, J.

1. The defendant in O.S. No. 106 of 1992, on the file of the Additional District Munsiff's Court, Sattur, is the revision petitioner. The defendant is an Institution known as Virdhunagar Sarvodaya Sangh. It is aggrieved by the order of the Court below in I.A. No. 1582 of 1993 filed by it. By virtue of the order, the Court below has held that it has jurisdiction to deal with the matter, and that there is no statutory bar in proceeding with the suit.

2. The relevant facts are as follows:

The plaintiff is an employee of the defendant-Sangh. There was some departmental proceeding against him, and on the basis of some enquiry, the plaintiff was suspended as per order dated 28-2-1992. The plaintiff in the suit challenges the order of suspension on the grounds that the enquiry officer to conducted the enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice, that a copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to him, and the proceedings are vitiated for various reasons mentioned in the plaint. On the date of suit, the plaintiff was under suspension. The reliefs sought for in he plaint are : (a) for declaring that the order of suspension dated 28.2.1992 from service, of the plaintiff, is illegal, null and void, (b) for directing the defendant to pay the sum of Rs. 1,355.90 due to he paid to the plaintiff byway of pay for the period from 1.3.1992 to 31.3.1992, and (c) for further reliefs regarding costs of suit.

3. In written statement filed by the defendant the main question that is agitated is, regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit. According to it, only Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court has not jurisdiction to decide the case. On merits also, the claim of the plaintiff regarding the enquiry is challenged.4. After written statement was filed, the defendant filed I.A. No. 1582 of 1993 to determine the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. The same was objected by the plaintiff.

5. By the impugned order, the Court below decided the preliminary issue against the defendant.

6. The only question that arises for consideration in this revision is, whether the over of the Court below holding that Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit is illegal or incorrect.

7. As stated earlier, the reliefs sought for in the plaint are : (1) to declare the suspension as illegal, and (2) to recover the salary for the period from 1.3.1992 to 31.3.1992.

8. The bar of suit in a Civil Court is governed by Sec. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sec. 9 says that the Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except the suits for which their cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred.

9. The contention of the petitioner is that since the plaintiff wants a declaration that the suspension is invalid, that amounts to a declaration that the non-employment is invalid. That is, according to the learned counsel, an industrial dispute and takes away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Main reliance is placed by the learned counsel on two decisions, namely, The Premier Automobiles Limited v. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke and others 1975 AIR(SC) 2238, 1975 (31) FLR 195, 1975 (48) FJR 252, 1975 LIC 1651, 1975 (2) LLJ 445, 1976 (1) LLN 1, 1976 (1) SCC 496, 1976 (1) SCR 427, 1976 SCC(L&S) 70, 1976 SCC(L&S) 70, 1976 SCC(L&S) 70, 1976 SCC(L&) 70, 1976 SCC(L&S) 70, 1976 SCC(L&S) 70, 1976 SCC(L&S) 70, 1976 SCC(L&S) 70 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Premier Automobiles Limited case and Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam v. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad, 1994 (1) LLJ 453.

10. In Premier Automobiles Case, 1975 AIR(SC) 2238, 1975 (31) FLR 195, 1975 (48) FJR 252, 1975 LIC 1651, 1975 (2) LLJ 445, 1976 (1) LLN 1, 1976 (1) SCC 496, 1976 (1) SCR 427, 1976 SCC(L&S) 70, 1976 SCC(L&S) 70, 1976 SCC(L&S) 70, 1976 SCC(L&) 70, 1976 SCC(L&S) 70, 1976 SCC(L&S) 70, 1976 SCC(L&S) 70, 1976 SCC(L&S) 70, the Apex Court has given the guidelines as to the principles applicable to the jurisdiction of the Civil C