Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
The Madras Race Club, rep. by its Secretary
Versus
M. Victor & Others
Application No. 1207 of 2013 in C.S. No. 72 of 2013
Decided On : 23-10-2013
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - JURISDICTION - CIVIL COURT - IMPLIED BAR - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - DOCTRINE OF ELECTION - VALUATION OF SUIT - COURT FEES - TAMILNADU COURT FEES AND SUITS VALUATION ACT, 1955 - APPLICABILITY - MAINTAINABILITY OF SUIT - PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents, employed as workmen in the applicant club, were prevented by the management from resuming work after a strike. They filed a suit in the civil court seeking a declaration that the action of the management was illegal, a permanent injunction restraining the management from denying wages, and a direction to pay costs. The applicant club filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds of implied bar of jurisdiction of the civil court, provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, doctrine of election, and improper valuation and non-payment of proper court fees.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not contain an express bar of jurisdiction of civil courts. 2. The Supreme Court has held that the jurisdiction of civil courts is impliedly barred in respect of remedies available under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. However, the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for enforcement of a right or obligation created by a statute other than the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, even if such right or obligation is also covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. The civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for enforcement of a right or obligation created by the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, even if such right or obligation is also covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. The civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for enforcement of a right or obligation created by a contract of employment, even if such right or obligation is also covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, unless the contract of employment is governed by the Model Standing Orders. 6. The civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for enforcement of a right or obligation created by a contract of employment, even if such right or obligation is also covered by the Model Standing Orders, if the suit is based on a violation of principles of common law or constitutional provisions or on other grounds. 7. The civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for enforcement of a right or obligation created by a contract of employment, even if such right or obligation is also covered by the Model Standing Orders, if no procedure has been followed as laid down by statutory regulation or as required by common law or as required by the principles of natural justice. 8. The suit is properly valued and proper court fees have been paid in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.
Issues: 1. Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for enforcement of a right or obligation created by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 2. Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for enforcement of a right or obligation created by the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946? 3. Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for enforcement of a right or obligation created by a contract of employment? 4. Whether the suit is properly valued and proper court fees have been paid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The jurisdiction of civil courts is impliedly barred in respect of remedies available under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. The civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for enforcement of a right or obligation created by a statute other than the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, even if such right or obligation is also covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. The civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for enforcement of a right or obligation created by the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, even if such right or obligation is also covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. The civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for enforcement of a right or obligation created by a contract of employment, even if such right or obligation is also covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, unless the contract of employment is governed by the Model Standing Orders. 5. The civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for enforcement of a right or obligation created by a contract of employment, even if such right or obligation is also covered by the Model Standing Orders, if the suit is based on a violation of principles of common law or constitutional provisions or on other grounds. 6. The civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for enforcement of a right or obligation created by a contract of employment, even if such right or obligation is also covered by the Model Standing Orders, if no procedure has been followed as laid down by statutory regulation or as required by common law or as required by the principles of natural justice. 7. The suit is properly valued and proper court fees have been paid in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.
Final Decision: The application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint is dismissed.
1. This is an application filed by the sole defendant in the suit praying for the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. I have heard Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant/defendant and Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/ plaintiffs.
3. The respondents herein were employed as workmen in the applicant club. The applicant is incorporated as a company, probably under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. During the period 28.7.2012 to 9.8.2012, the applicant club appears to have terminated the services of 110 persons employed as security personnel. Protesting such an en masse termination, the workers' union (unregistered) issued a strike call with effect from 30.8.2012, demanding reinstatement of those 110 security workers.
4. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) initiated proceedings, but the same ended in failure on 14.12.2012. However, the union decided to resume work without prejudice to their demands and the workers claim that they reported for duty on Monday, 17th day of December 2012. According to the respondents-workers (who are the plaintiffs), they were prevented by the management from resuming work.
5. Therefore, contending that the action of the management in refusing to allow them to perform their duties is illegal, the workers, who are the respondents/plaintiffs filed the above suit in January 2013, praying for the following reliefs :
"(a) For a declaration declaring the action of the defendant in denying the plaintiffs access to the place of work, viz., The Madras Race Club, Post Box No.2639, Guindy, Chennai-600032 and thereby not paying them wages from 17.12.2012 to be illegal;
(b) For permanent injunction restraining the defendant from denying the plaintiffs wages for the period from 17.12.2012 onwards; and
(c) Directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiffs the costs to the suit."
6. Along with the plaint, the respondents/plaintiffs filed an application for injunction in O.A.No.78 of 2013, for restraining the applicant/defendant from denying wages to the workers from 17.12.2012 onwards. In the said application, this Court ordered notice and after service of notice, the applicant/ defendant has come up with the above application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC for rejection of plaint.
7. Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant/ defendant submitted that the suit is not maintainable -
(i) in view of the implied bar of jurisdiction of civil court contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947;
(ii) in view of the provisions of section 14(1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as the reliefs sought in the suit cannot be granted by this court;
(iii) in view, at least of, the doctrine of election, since the workers have already invoked the machinery provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; and
(iv) in view of improper valuation and non payment of proper court fee as prescribed by the Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.
8. Per contra, Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/ plaintiffs contended -
(i) that though the dispute between the parties is an industrial dispute, the reliefs sought by the respondents in the above suit, do not fall within the four corners of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947;
(ii) that the contracts of employment between the applicant and the respondents are still intact and hence, the refusal of the applicant to provide work entitles the respondents to seek the remedies before the civil court;
(iii) that only three out of 164 workers have gone to Labour Court and the doctrine of election does not apply to all the plaintiffs; and
(iv) that the suit hasbeen instituted on a common cause of action for all the plaintiffs in terms of Order I Rule 1 of the Code and hence, the suit is perfectly valued and adequate court fee already paid.
9. I have carefully considered the above submissions.
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
