IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2891-1994 (O&M)

Date of decision: 15.05.2025 Punjab State Electricity Board and another ...Appellants Versus Nirmal Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. M.S. Longia, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the respondents.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. Challenge in the present Regular Second Appeal is to the judgment dated 18.09.1991 vide which the suit filed by respondent No.1 (plaintiff No.1) was allowed. Challenge is also to the judgment and decree dated 05.05.1994 vide which the appeal filed by the present appellants/defendants was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., Nirmal Singh (plaintiff No.1) and Rajinder Singh (plaintiff No.2), had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the act of removal of the plaintiffs from their employment by defendant No.2 on 01.04.1989 was against the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as “the 1947 Act”) and was thus, void and the plaintiffs were in continuous employment from the date of their original employment and were entitled to the arrears of salary along with interest and costs. It was the case of the plaintiffs in the plaint that the plaintiffs were in the employment of the Punjab State Electricity Board and were under the control and supervision of defendant No.2 i.e., Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board City Division, Pathankot, and that they had completed more than 240 days in 12 months, preceding the date on which they were relieved from the employment i.e., on 01.04.1989. It was further their case that the plaintiffs were “workmen” as defined under Section 2(s) of the 1947 Act and that the Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala was an “industry” as defined under Section 2(j) of the 1947 Act and that the plaintiffs were removed from service without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the 1947 Act and on the said plea, the suit was filed.

3. In the written statement filed by the defendants, two preliminary objections were raised, including the objection that the Civil Court had got no jurisdiction to try the matter since the plaintiffs had a specific remedy under the 1947 Act and that the suit was not maintainable in the present form. It was specifically stated that the plaintiffs were casual workers and that it was incorrect to say that they had completed 240 days in the preceding one year. The pleas raised in the plaint were opposed and it was thus, prayed that the suit be dismissed. Replication was filed by the plaintiffs to the same. 4. On 01.03.1990, the trial Court had framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration as prayed for, if so its effect? OPP.

2. Whether the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD.

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?

OPD.

4. Relief.”

5. The trial Court, after considering the documents on record, more so service books Ex.P-7 and P-6 came to the conclusion that plaintiff No.1- Nirmal Singh had worked for 240 days in 12 months, preceding the date of his being relieved i.e., on 01.04.1989 and the same was done without following the mandatory provision of Section 25-F of the 1947 Act. With respect to plaintiff No.2-Rajinder Singh, it was observed that since he had not completed 240 days thus, he had no case and suit qua him was dismissed.

6. On the issue with respect to maintainability of the civil suit i.e., issue No.2, the trial Court, by relying upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Municipality Jagadhri Vs. Ved Parkash Aggarwal and another reported as 1988 (7) SLR 347, had observed that since the plaintiffs had two remedies, it was their choice to either approach the Civil Court or the Industrial Disputes Tribunal and thus, observed that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit.