CHIEF ENGINEER, HYDEL PROJECT & ORS. versus RAVINDER NATH & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 1121 · Decided: 24-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 1 S.C.R. 1121 
A 
CHIEF ENGINEER, HYDEL PROJECT & ORS. 
v. 
RAVINDER NATH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 658 of 2008) 
B 
JANUARY 24, 2008 
(S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.) 
-+-
Labour Law: 
c 
Certified Standing Orders: 
r20 rlw r3(9) - Workers engaged on work-charge basis 
for a specific project - Termination of services of workers on 
completion of project - Challenged in a civil suit for declaration 
and claiming reinstatement with back wages - Specific plea 
D of exclusion of jurisdiction of civil court raised before Supreme 
Court - HELD: Keeping in view the claim of workers and 
defence of employers, the dispute fell in the area of Industrial 
Disputes Act and was clearly outside the jurisdiction of civil 
court - A decree passed by a court without jurisdiction would 
E continue to be a nullity as the same is hit by doctrine of coram 
non-judice - Such a decree cannot be upheld merely on the 
ground that objection to jurisdiction was not taken at the initial, 
first appellate or second appellate stage -
Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908 - ss. 9 and 100 - Jurisdiction of civil court -
F 
Substantial question of law - Practice and Procedure -
Doctrine - Coram non-judice - Applicability of. 
The plaintiff-respondents filed a civil suit praying for 
a declaration that the orders of termination of their 
services/retrenchment passed by the defendant-
G appellants were illegal, and claimed reinstatement with 
back wages. It was stated that the principle of 'last come 
+ 
first go' was not followed and the action of the employer 
was based on pick and choose policy, which was 
discriminatory and amounted to victimization. The 
H defendant-appellants contended that engagement of the 
1121 
CHIEF ENGINEER, HYDEL PROJECT & ORS. v. 
1122 
RAVINDER NATH & ORS. 
plaintiffs was purely temporary on work-charge basis, and A 
after the completion of the project their services were 
terminated as per Rule 20(1) read with Rule 3(9) of the 
Certified Standing Orders. The trial court decreed the suit 
holding that the principle of 'last come first go' was not 
followed in effecting the retrenchment. The trial court also B 
directed that in case by virtue of the seniority the workers 
were not found entitled to be retained in the project in 
... 
question, they would be absorbed in other projects under 
the defendant. The appeal of the employers was 
dismissed. In the second appeal filed by the employers, c 
the High Court first granted an interim stay but later 
vacated the same which led to filing of a Special Leave 
Petition before the Supreme Court wherein a ground was 
raised that the civil court had no jurisdiction in the matter 
as the relief of reinstatement was available only under the D 
Industrial Disputes Act. The Supreme Court at that stage 
only directed expeditious disposal of the second appeal. 
Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the second appeal 
and affirmed the decree. 
In the instant appeal, it was contended for the E 
appellant-employers that the matter fell within the ambit 
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the jurisdiction 
of the civil court stood impliedly excluded. For the 
respondent-workers it was contended that the issue of 
jurisdiction was not raised before the courts below and, 
F 
~~ 
therefore, the same could not be allowed to be raised at 
such a late stage. 
The questions for consideration before the Court 
were: (i) whether the issue regarding reinstatement and 
·· - paymenf of back-wages could be said to be covered G 
under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act; and (ii) 
.. ~ 
whether the plea of jurisdiction was not raised either 
' 
before the first appellate court or in the second appeal 
and could the same be allowed to be raised before the 
Supreme Court in the instant appeal? 
H 
1123 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the instant case, the dispute clearly fell 
outside the jurisdiction of civil court. There is no dispute 
that there are Certified Standing Orders in vogue. The 
plaintiffs-respondents were temporarily engaged on 
8 work-charge basis till the completion of the Project. After 
the completion of the Project as the plaintiffs were no 
more required, admittedly, their services were terminated 
by an order under Rule 20(1) read with Rule 3-A of the 
Certified Standing Orders as applicable to work-charge 
C staff. The plaintiffs-respondents alleged that the principles 
under the provisions of the Certified S

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.