APOLLO TYRES LTD. versus C.P. SABASTIAN

Citation: [2009] 7 S.C.R. 336 · Decided: 30-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, H.L. DATTU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 7 S.C.R 336 
A 
APOLLO TYRES LTD. 
v 
C.P. SABASTIAN 
Civil Appeal No. 7007 of 2003 
B 
APRIL 30, 2009 
(MARKANDEY KAT JU AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.) 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 : 
,. . 
Power of Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal vis-a-vis Civil 
c Court - Contract for personal service includes all matters 
relating to service of the employee like confirmation, 
suspension, transfer, termination etc. - Civil Court has no 
iurisdiction in such matters - Civil Court - Jurisdiction. 
Pearlite Lioners (P) Ltd. vs. Manorama Sirsi 2004 (3) SCC 
r. 
D 172 - relied on. 
.. 
)-
Case Law Reference 
2004(3) sec 112 
relied on 
para 13 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No(s). 
7007 of 2003 
From the Judgement and Order dated 06.09.2002 of the 
Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in CMA No. 114 of 
~~ 
2001 
F 
WITH 
Civil Appeal No. 7008 of 2003 
P. S. Patwalia, Romy Chacko, Saji Varghese, Ramesh 
Singh, Ankur Saigal, Bina Gupta, Gaurav Singh, with him for 
G theAppellant(s). 
A. 
E.M.S. Anam, for the Respondent(s). 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
H 
336 
..... 
• 
' 
APPOLO TYRES LTD. V. C.P. SABASTIAN 
337 
1. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned A 
judgment of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 06
1
h 
September, 2002 passed in CMA No.14 of 2001 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. 
B 
2. The reaspondent-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 Article 12 of the Constitution. 
3. Facts giving rise to this appeal are: 
The plaintiff filed a suit being OS No. 2098 of 1999 before 
the Munsiff's Court, lrinjalakuda, DistrictThrissur, Kerala seeking 
the following reliefs: 
c 
D 
"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. 
8. 
Declaring that the order of transfer (Ref.WKS/PSL 
E 
dated 08-10-1999) issued by the defendant transferring 
plaintiff to West Bengal is intended to victimize, made 
with malafie intentions, irregular and illegal. 
C. 
Restraining defendant and its officers from compelling 
plaintiff by any modes to accept any promoted post which 
F 
he is not willing to hold. 
D. 
Restraining the defendant, its officers and men from 
any way interfering with plaintiffs right to perform legitimate 
trade union activities as the General Secretary of the union G 
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." 
H 
338 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
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 05
1
h day of October, 
2000 allowed the said application and dismissed the suit filed 
8 
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 25
1
h 
C 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. 
D 
8. Aggrieved against the order of the first appellate 
authority, the defendant filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 
14 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 
E 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. 
F 
11. Heard learned counsel forthe 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 Section 14(b) of the 
Specific Relief Act, 1963 which states that a contract of personal 
G service cannot be enforced in a civil suit. In our opinion, if the 
plaintiff had any grievance and if he is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.