Back
2008(3) Supreme 230
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Rajasthan High Court)
S.B. Sinha & P.P. Naolekar, JJ.
Rajasthan SRTC & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
Mohar Singh — Respondent
Appeal (civil) 2945 of 2008
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6756 of 2006)
Decided on : 24-04-2008
(b) Judicial Review – Jurisdiction – Civil Court may have a limited jurisdiction in service matters and it may not sit in appeal over the order passed in the disciplinary proceedings or on the quantum of punishment imposed – It may also not direct reinstatement in service having regard to Section 14(1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – But it cannot be said to have no jurisdiction at all to entertain a suit – It is trite that where the right is claimed by the plaintiff in terms of common law or under a statute other than the one which created a new right for the first time and when a forum has also been created for enforcing the said right, the Civil Court shall also have jurisdiction to entertain a suit where the plaintiff claim benefit of a fundamental right as adumbrated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India or mandatory provisions of statute or statutory rules governing the terms and conditions of service. (Para 11)
AIR 1975 SC 2238; (1859) 6 CB (NS) 336 – Relied upon.
(1995) 5 SCC 75 – Distinguished.
(c) Judicial Review – When a right accrues under two statutes vis-à-vis the common law right, the concerned employee will have an option to chose his forum. (Para 12)
(d) Judicial Review – Jurisdiction – If a right is claimed under the Industrial Disputes Act or the sister laws, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would be barred – If however no such right is claimed, civil court will have jurisdiction. (Para 20)
(1995) 5 SCC 75; (2005) 7 SCC 447; AIR 1998 SC 3038 – Relied upon.
(2006) 1 SCC 59 – Referred.
(e) Judicial Review – Jurisdiction – If it is found that the action on the part of a State is violative of the Constitutional Provisions or the mandatory requirements of a statute or statutory rules, the Civil Court would have the jurisdiction to direct reinstatement with full back wages. (Para 22)
AIR 1969 SC 1306 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case:
1. On the charges of alleged commission of misconduct on the part of the respondent, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the said charges. By reason of an order dated 31.5.1985, the disciplinary authority, upon considering the report of enquiry officer inflicted the punishment of dismissal from services on him with immediate effect. It was furthermore directed that he shall not be entitled to further wages save and except what has already been paid to him by way of subsistence allowance.
2. An appeal preferred by him was dismissed by the Appellate Authority.
3. Respondent filed a civil suit which was decreed holding that the order of termination as also the order of the appellate authority were illegal, bad in law and against the principles of natural justice.
4. An appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur City by a judgment and order dated 5.5.2000.
5. The High Court, by reason of the impugned judgment has dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant.
Findings of the Court :
If it is found that the action on the part of a State is violative of the Constitutional Provisions or the mandatory requirements of a statute or statutory rules, the Civil Court would have the jurisdiction.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. First appellant (Corporation) is a statutory corporation constituted and incorporated under the Road Corporation Act, 1951. Respondent herein was a driver of a bus employed by the Corporation.
3. On the charges of alleged commission of misconduct on the part of the respondent, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on or about 6.11.1982. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the said charges. By reason of an order dated 31.5.1985, the disciplinary authority, upon considering the report of enquiry officer inflicted the punishment of dismissal from services on him with immediate effect. It was furthermore directed that he shall not be entitled to further wages save and except what has already been paid to him by way of subsistence allowance.
4. An appeal preferred by him was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by an order dated 16.6.1987.
5. Respondent filed a civil suit in the Court Additional Munsif, Jaipur which was marked as Civil Suit No.632/88 (290/86). In his written statement, the appellant, inter alia, contended that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Some of the issues framed by the Civil Court were :
“(1) Whether the order of termination No.1516 dated 31.5.1985 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 16.6.1987 are illegal and bad in law?
XXX XXX XXX
(3) Whether the Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit?”
6. While determining issue No.1, the Trial Court, inter alia, held that the order of termination dated 31.5.1985 as also the order of the appellate authority were illegal, bad in law and against the principles of natural justice, opining :
i) The documents mentioned in the charge-sheet whereupon the appellant relied, had not been supplied to the respondent;
ii) He was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the department; and
iii) The enquiry officer acted like a prosecutor.
7. On the said findings, the suit was decreed, opining :
“In the result, it is ordered that the suit of the plaintiff is decreed against the defendant declaring that the order No.1516 dated 31.5.1985 passed by the defendant and the order of the Appellant Authority dated 16.6.1987 is held to be illegal, bad in law non est being against principle of natural justice and, therefore, is set aside. It is also declared that the plaintiff would be treated to be in continuous service of the defendant without any break and would also be entitled to receive all the monetary benefits as he would have been entitled has he been in continuous service.”
8. An appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur City by a judgment and order dated 5.5.2000.
The High Court, by reason of the impugned judgment has dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant, holding that no substantial question of law arose for its consideration.
9. Mr. Thanvi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that the Civil Court, in the facts and circumstances of this case, had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
It was pointed out that as there exists conflict between two three Judge Bench decisions of this Court in Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation & Anr. v. Krishna Kant & Ors.,1 [(1995) 5 SCC 75] and Rajasthan SRTC & Ors. v. Khadarmal,2 [(2006) 1 SCC 59], a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Appeal No.3428 of 2005 referred the matter to a larger Bench.
10. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that all Civil Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
The jurisdiction of the Civil Court apparently is not expressly barred by the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The question which arises for our consideration would be as to whether the same is barred by necessary implication.
11. Ci
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
