The core issues could be raised and decided during the trial of the suit, and the issues relating to the valuation of the suit and the jurisdiction of the civil court could also be raised and decided during the trial of the suit.

M. Jaichandren, J.

1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned.

2. This original side appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 23.10.2013, in Application No.1207 of 2013, in C.S.No.72 of 2013. The appellant herein had filed the said application praying for the rejection of the plaint filed in C.S.No.72 of 2013, under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

3. The learned single Judge had dismissed the application filed by the appellant herein, by his order, dated 23.10.2013, stating that the appellant had not made out a case for the rejection of the plaint, under Order VII Rule 11 clause (b), where the relief claimed is under valued and under clause (d), where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.

4. Mr. R. Viduthalai, the learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, had submitted that the application in Application No.1207 of 2013, had been filed, under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, for the rejection of the plaint filed in the suit, in C.S.No.72 of 2013, stating that the plaintiffs in the said suit had made an indirect claim for employment, alleged to have been denied by the appellant.

5. He had further submitted that the claims made by the plaintiffs in the suit and the reliefs prayed for therein are relating to an Industrial Dispute, within the meaning of section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, it can be agitated only before the appropriate forum, specially created under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and not before the civil Court. The reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs in the suit, who are the respondents herein, are in the nature of enforcement of contracts of personal service, which is specifically barred under section 14(1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Further, the plaintiffs cannot seek the reliefs, as prayed for by them, for the enforcement of contracts of personal service, by way of a declaration, as it is barred under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Therefore, the declaratory reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs and the prayer for the grant of an order of injunction cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

6. The learned counsel had further submitted that the request for the grant of an order of permanent injunction, by the plaintiffs in the suit, restraining the defendant therein, the appellant in the present appeal, from denying their wages for the period, from 17.12.2012 onwards, is partly in the nature of recovery of money alleged to be the arrears of salary and partly in the nature of mandatory injunction directing the defendant in the suit to pay the future wages. Further, the plaintiffs cannot claim employment, by way of the declaratory reliefs. No direction can be obtained, in respect of the payment of the arrears of salary, said to be due to them, by way of an order of injunction.

7. The learned counsel had further submitted that the first plaintiff in the suit, in C.S.No.72 of 2013, had filed a C.P.No.335 of 2013, on the file of the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai, under section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

8. The learned counsel had submitted that the plaintiffs in the suit, the respondents in the present appeal, had valued the suit, for the relief of declaration, for each plaintiff, at Rs.15,250/-. As such, the suit had been valued at Rs.25,01,000/-, in order to file the suit before this Court. The declaratory relief claimed by the 164 plaintiffs in the suit is in respect of the alleged contract of personal service said to have been entered into independently with the appellant herein. The valuation of the suit, by the respondents herein, is improper and therefore, the plaint filed by them in the suit, in C.S.No.72 of 2013, is liable to be rejected, under Order VII Rule 11 (b) of the Civil Procedures Code, 1908, for under valuation of the suit. The cause of action for