CHANDRAKANT TUKARAM NIKAM AND ORS. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF AHMEDABAD AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 861 · Decided: 06-02-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
CHANDRAKANT TUKARAM NIKAM AND ORS. 
v. 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF AHMEDABAD AND ANR. 
Labour Laws: 
FEBRUARY 6, 2002 
[G.B.PATTANAIK,R.P.SETHIAND 
BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
Sections 2(k) and 2-A-lndustrial Disputes-Termination of service-
Jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain-Held: The power of Industrial Courts 
A 
B 
c 
is wide and such forums are empowered to grant adequate relief-Hence, 
jurisdiction of civil courts is impliedly barred-The appropriate forum for 
resolution of industrial disputes is the forum constituted under the ID Act- D 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, S.9. 
The appellants-workmen filed a civil suit in the City Civil Court 
challenging the orders of their dismissal/removal from service by the 
respondent-Corporation. The City Civil Court dismissed the suit for want of 
jurisdiction. The High Court held that the competence of the authority that E 
passed the dismissal/removal orders could be gone into by the Labour Court 
or the Industrial Tribunal and, therefore, Civil Court's jurisdiction to 
entertain the suit was impliedly barred under Section 9 of the Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908. Hence this appeal. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was enacted by the 
Parliament to provide speedy, inexpensive and effective forum for resolution 
F 
of disputes arising between the workmen and the employers, the underlying 
idea being to ensure that the workmen do not get caught in the labyrinth of G 
civil courts which the workmen can ill afford. (870-EJ 
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Kant, (19951 
5 sec 75, relied on. 
• 
2. The procedure followed by Civil Courts is too lengthy and 
861 
H 
862 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] I S.C.R. 
A consequently, is not an efficacious forum for resolving Industrial Disputes 
speedily. The power of Industrial Courts also is wide and such forums are 
empowered to grant adequate relief as they think just and appropriate. It is in 
the interest of the workmen that their disputes, including the dispute of illegal 
termination, are adjudicated upon by an industrial forum. The legality of order 
B of termination passed by the employer will be an industrial dispute within the 
meaning of Section 2(k) and under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 
Every award of Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal or National Tribunal is 
required to be published by the appropriate Government within a period of 
thirty days from the date of its receipt and such award published under Section 
17(1) is held to be final. In such cases the jurisdiction of the Civil Court must 
C be held to have been impliedly barred and the appropriate forum for resolution 
of such dispute is the forum constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act. 
[870-F-H) 
D 
Premier Automobiles Ltd, v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke, (1976) 1 SCC 
496, relied on. 
Dhulabhai v. State of MP., (1968) 3 SCR 662, referred to. 
• 
Sirsi Municipality v. Cecelia Korn Francis Tellis, (1973] l SCC 409 and 
~ 
Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1987) Supp. SCC 582, held inapplicable. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4849-4854 of 
1992. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.6.92 of the Gujarat High Court 
in L.P.A. Nos. 24-29of1991. 
Huzefa Ahmadi and Ms. Meenakshi Arora for the Appellants. 
Mahendra Anand, H.S. Parihar, Kuldeep S. Parihar and Ms. Vibha M. 
Anand for [he Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
PA TT ANAIK, J. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the 
Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in Letters Patent Appeals filed against 
a common judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 22nd September, 1990. 
The workmen of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation challenged the orders of 
dismissal/removal from service, by filing a Civil Suit. The City Civil Court 
framed four issu.:s, one of which is whether the suit is bad for want of 
H jurisdiction. On the said issue it came to the conclusion that the Civil Court 
CHANDRAKANT TUKARAM NIKAM • MUNICIPAL CORPN OF AHMEDABAD [PATTANAIK, J.] 863 
had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, accordingly the suit was A 
dismissed. Identical suits filed by different employees against the order of 
termination having been dismissed by the City Civil Court, individual appeals 
had been preferred and all those appeals, six in number, stood disposed of 
by a common judgment of the learned Single Judge of Gujarat High Court. The
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.