Back
2016 Supreme(Ori) 1270
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
A.K. Rath., J.
NOBLE GAS LTD. - APPELLANT
Versus
NOBLE GAS WORKER`S UNION - RESPONDENT
W.P. (C) No. 16513 of 2007
Decided On : 15-02-2016
Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, Senior Advocate, for the Petitioner; None, for the Opp. Party; Mr. D.P. Nanda, Advocate, for the Amicus Curiae
The main legal point established is that the civil court has jurisdiction to decide disputes that are of a civil nature and not expressly or impliedly barred, as per Section 9 C.P.C. and the interpretation of 'civil nature' by the Supreme Court.
Headnote:
I.D. Act - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Section 151 C.P.C. - The Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke and others, AIR 1975 SC 2238 - Section 9 C.P.C. - Most. Rev. P.M. Metropolitan and others, etc. v. Moran Mar Marthoma and another etc., AIR 1995 SC 2001 - Railway Board, New Delhi and another v. Niranjan Singh, AIR 1969 SC 966
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant's union from disrupting the production of oxygen in the factory. The defendant filed an application under Section 151 C.P.C. to dismiss the suit as not maintainable, claiming that the dispute falls under the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act). The trial court allowed the application and dismissed the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was maintainable in its present form and quashed the trial court's order, holding that the civil court had jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
Issues: The main issue was whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the provisions of Section 9 C.P.C., the interpretation of 'civil nature' by the Supreme Court, and the principles from The Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke and others, AIR 1975 SC 2238. It also considered the applicability of Article 19 of the Constitution of India and the immunity from civil suit under Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and held that the suit was maintainable in its present form, quashing the trial court's order.
Key Points: - The civil court has jurisdiction to try all civil suits unless barred, as per Section 9 CPC and its interpretation. (!) (!) - The suit is of civil nature and maintainable in its present form; the trial court’s dismissal under Section 151 CPC was quashed. (!) (!) - The case analyzes the definitions and interpretation of "civil nature" and its breadth beyond "civil proceeding." (!) (!) (!) - The decision references The Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke to distinguish industrial disputes from civil suits. (!) (!) - Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act provides immunity from civil suit for acts done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, influencing the maintainability discussion. (!) (!) - The dispute in question is not an industrial dispute under the I.D. Act, nor a dispute enforceable under the Act; thus civil remedy is available. (!) (!) - The court ultimately held that the suit is maintainable and the order quashing the suit is set aside. (!) (!)
What is the jurisdiction of civil courts under Section 9 CPC when a dispute is alleged to be under the Industrial Disputes Act?
What is the meaning of the term "civil nature" in Section 9 CPC as interpreted by the Supreme Court, and does the present dispute fall within it?
What is the status of immunity from civil suit under Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act concerning actions taken in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute?
JUDGMENT :
Dr. A.K. Rath, J. - The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to quash the order dated 11.12.2007 passed by the learned Civil Jude (Jr. Divn.), Jajpur Road in C.S. No.62 of 2007, whereby and where under the learned trial court allowed the application filed by the defendant under Section 151 C.P.C. and held that the dispute comes under the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the "I.D. Act") and as such civil court has no jurisdiction to maintain the civil suit and accordingly dismissed the suit.
2. The petitioner as plaintiff instituted C.S. No.62 of 2007 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jajpur Road for permanent injunction restraining the defendant's union from holding demonstrations, dharanas, blockages, gherao, shouting, slogans, putting up loudspeakers, causing hindrance in the egress and ingress of the materials required for the purpose of production of the industry within a radius of 500 metres of the factory site. The case of the plaintiff is that it is an industry engaged in production of oxygen. The defendant worker's union is a union of the workers of the plaintiff. They are openly expressing to stop production, man-handling the officers and staffs of the company. Virtually they have stopped production of the company. Their sole intention is to extract money from the Manager. The illegal and unauthorized activities of the defendant worker's union are detrimental to the smooth running of the company. The activities of the union are intended to cause permanent loss of the company. They are determined to obstruct normal functioning of industry. Members of the defendant worker's union including it's office bearers are threatening the workers, employee and officers of the plaintiff company. They are threatening to confine the officers of the company. Also they are threatening the customers and transporters. On 12.04.2007, they have forcibly snatched away wage registers of the company for which the workers could not get their wages for the month of March. Regularly they closed the main gate of the unit forcibly and stopped production/transaction of the unit. With this factual scenario, the suit was filed.
3. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed a comprehensive written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It is stated that the plaintiff-industry is engaged in production of oxygen for industrial purpose. The factory is running well. The Managing Director is getting huge amount of profit in each year. Large numbers of workers have been appointed for production purpose of the factory. The Managing Director has not given minimum wages to the workers for which the workers demanded 14 points chapter of demands on 31.3.2004. The worker's union also demanded to enhance their house rent, medical benefit, etc. But the Managing Director issued notice to retrench the workers and to lay out the factory for repairing purpose. Instead of giving wages to the employees, the Managing Director intended to retrench the workers and appointed fresh contract labourers with low salary in order to get huge profit. They have neither threatened nor confined Directors nor closed the main gate. They have not snatched away the wage register on 12.4.2007. Since the Managing Director has not given the minimum wages to the workers, on a demand being made by the Union Secretary of the Labour Department, the Manager produced the wage register before the Labour Department. The District Labour Officer on 11.5.2007 has given remark that the Managing Director has contravened Rule 21(6) of Orissa Minimum Wages Rule 1954 where after show cause was issued to the Managing Director. It is further stated that the workers have not been involved in dharanas, blockages, gherao, shouting, etc. Further the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case under Section 2(f) of the I.D. Act.
4. While the matter stood thus, the defenda
