IMPORTANT POINT
The jurisdiction over employment-related disputes, particularly promotions, lies exclusively with Labour Courts under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.

Heard Shri Diptiman Singh, counsel for the appellant.

2. The appellant has approached this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 3.11.1979 passed by the Civil Judge 1st, Kanpur in Civil Appeal No. 326/79.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the sole question of law involved in the present second appeal is as to whether the suit was not maintainable before the Civil Court as the relief sought for is squarely covered by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He claims that it is the Labour Court which has jurisdiction to entertain such a matter and, hence, a Civil Court has no jurisdiction.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records with his assistance. No one is present for the respondent despite the service of notice through the publication.

5. The facts of the case are that a suit was filed with the following relief:

''(a) By a decree of declaration it be declared that for purposes of promotion of employees of different groups B,C,D and E of the Technical and Non-Technical Groups of the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Kanpur Division, Kanpur, to the next respective higher groups by departmental promotions, the inter se seniority of persons, who qualify in such promotion tests and interviews, be reckoned with reference to the actual seniority of the persons by length of service in the respective immediately preceding groups, in which they were employed prior to their promotion to their respective present groups.

(b) By a consequential decree of permanent injunction the defendant No. 1, their agents and servants be restrained from considering persons, who are actually junior by length of service in the immediately preceding groups in which they were employed prior to their promotion to their present groups as seniors than the plaintiffs and other senior employees, who are actually senior by length of service in the immediately preceding groups prior to promotion to the present groups, and effecting promotions to the next higher groups on the basis of such wrongly reckoning seniority by the defendant No. 1.

(c) That by a consequential mandatory injunction the defendant No. 1 be directed to rectify the wrongly promotions effected through departmental promotions tests and interviews conducted in 1976 and 1977 treating persons, who were junior in their respective groups by length of service to be senior on the basis of marks obtained in the tests and interviews held for promotion from the previous groups, than persons, who are actually senior in the respective previous groups by length of service in such previous groups and to promote such genuinely senior persons to the next higher groups with retrospective effect from the date when such promotions to the next higher groups were effected and to treat such persons to be senior in the respective next higher groups to those junior persons, who were promoted to such next higher groups.

(d) The costs of the suit be awarded to the plaintiffs against the defendant No. 1''

6. Therefore, the issue involved between the parties was with regard to promotion and interpretation of classification of rights and/or application and interpretation of Standing Orders. The same is covered by the Second and Third Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and matters with regard to the same can only be heard and decided by the Labour Court or the Industrial Dispute Tribunal.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Milkhi Ram v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, 2021(10) SCC 752. Paragraph 14 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:

''14. In the present matter, the appellant has clearly founded his claim in the suit, on the provisions of the ID Act and the employer therefore is entitled to raise a jurisdictional objection to the proceedings before the Civil Court. The Courts below including the executing Court negated the jurisdictional