The civil court lacks jurisdiction to declare employment dismissals illegal, redirecting claims to the appropriate labor forum under the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

In this regular second appeal, the defendants assail the correctness of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below while decreeing the plaintiff's (respondent herein) suit for grant of decree of declaration to the effect that his suspension order dated 31.01.1989, the charge sheet dated 04.02.1985 and the dismissal order passed on 23.05.198, were illegal, unlawful, void and he is entitled to be reinstated in service with all emoluments has been decreed by both the courts below.

2. On 13.09.1989, Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.V.Gupta, as he then was, passed the following order:-

"Major Singh plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that suspension order of the plaintiff dated 31st January 1985 and the charge sheet served on him dated 4th February 1985 as well as the dismissal order dated 23rd May 1985 of the plaintiff from the post of Cane Clerk in Punjab Khand Udyog Limited, Zira was illegal, unlawful and void etc. and that he is entitled for reinstatement on the said post with all emoluments. The said suit was contested on behalf of the defendant-appellant. Two preliminary objections were raised in the written statement. One was that the defendant-Punjab Khand Udyog Limited is an instrumentality of the State Government and is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and since notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was mandatory, has not been issued, the suit was liable to be dismissed. Second objection was that the suit was barred by jurisdiction as the matters of promotion/suspension/dismissal are internal functions of the management and the same cannot be interfered with by the civil Court and the proper Court is the Labour Court. Issue with regard to first objection was framed and was found against the defendant. No issue, however, was framed as to the jurisdiction of the Court in view of the second objection. However, the said point was allowed to be argued before the lower appellate Court and in view of that the first objection was abandoned. Learned Additional District Judge found as under :

"In view of the discussion above, it is apparent that objection No.2 of written statement has not been pressed by the defendant in the lower Court and the same stands waived. No plea of relationship of master and servant was taken up in the lower Court and the same cannot be allowed to be taken in appeal. Also that the appellant is a creation of State under a statute and hence, instrumentality of the State."

It is this finding of the lower appellate Court which is being primarily challenged in this appeal. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the defendant (Punjab Khand Udyog Limited) is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act and is not a creation under any statute as held by the lower appellate Court. According to the learned counsel, since it is a question which goes to the very root of jurisdiction of the civil Court, it could be taken up at any stage. Once it is proved that the defendant is not a creation under any statute but is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, then no suit for declaration as such was maintainable. In support of his contention the counsel referred to Chandrika Misir and another v. Bhaiyalal, A.I.R. 1973 SC. 2391 and M/s. Tata Consulting Engineers v. The Workmen Employed under them, 1980 (3) S.L.R. 628. It was held in Chandrika Misir's case (supra) that where the Court is inherently lacking jurisdiction the plea may be raised at any stage even if it was not raised in the trial Court. Such a plea can be raised even in execution proceedings on the ground that the decree is a nullity. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in M/s. Tata Consulting Engineers's case (supra) that the consent by a party cannot confer jurisdiction on Court. Thus argued the learned counsel, in order to find out, as to whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit or not, it has become