Civil Courts lack jurisdiction to enforce contracts of personal service; such matters must be addressed under the Industrial Disputes Act.

1Civil Appeal No.7007 of 2003
This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 6th September, 2002 passed in C.M.A.No. 114 of 2001 2002 (3) KLT 481 -Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. Sebastian) whereby the High Court while confirming the judgment and decree of the Court below has held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

2. The respondent plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff was an employee of the appellant defendant, hereinafter referred to as the 'defendant' which is a private company and not State under Art. 12 of the Constitution Of India, 1950.

3. Facts giving rise to this appeal are:
3.1. The plaintiff filed a suit being O.S. No. 2098 of 1999 before the Munsiff's Court, Irinjalakuda, District Thrissur, Kerala seeking the following reliefs:
"A. Declaring that plaintiff is still a workman (Radial Tyre Builder) and continues to be a workman under the defendant entitled for wages and all other consequential benefits of service from the defendant.
B. Declaring that the order of transfer (Ref.WKS/PSL dated 8.10.1999) issued by , the defendant transferring plaintiff to West Bengal is intended to victimize, made with malafide intentions, irregular and illegal.
C. Restraining defendant and its officers from compelling plaintiff by any modes to accept any promoted post which he is not willing to hold.
D. Restraining the defendant, its officers and men from any way interfering with plaintiff's right to perform legitimate trade union activities as the General Secretary of the union Apollo Tyres Workers Movement.
E. Granting the cost of suit from the defendant and allowing plaintiff to realize the same from the defendant and its assets."

4. Defendant filed a written statement in the suit as well as I.A. No. 1707 of 2000 stating that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in the matter.

5. The Trial Court by its order dated 5th day of October, 2000 allowed the said application and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

6. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Trial Court, plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority.

7. The First Appellate Authority by its order dated 25th January, 2001 reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for a fresh disposal.

8. Aggrieved against the order of the first Appellate Authority, the defendant filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 114 of 2001 in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.

9. The High Court, by the impugned order, has confirmed the order of the First Appellate Authority and held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter. It was also directed that the suit shall be disposed of within three months.

10. Aggrieved against the impugned order, the defendant is before us.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

12. On the facts of the case, we are clearly of the view that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by S. 14(b) of the Specific Relief Act , 1963 which states that a contract of personal service cannot be enforced in a civil suit. In our opinion, if the plaintiff had any grievance and if he is a workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, he should have raised an industrial dispute and sought relief under the , 1947 before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal. There are many powers which the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal enjoy which the Civil Court does not enjoy e.g. the power to enforce contracts of personal service, to create contracts, to chang