LexCOAL MINES P.F. COMMR. THR. BOARD OF TRUSTEE versus RAMESH CHANDRA JHA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 2 S.C.R. 887 COAL MINES P.F. COMMR. THR. BOARD OF TRUSTEE v. RAMESH CHANDRA JHA (Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2012) JANUARY 4, 2012 [ALTAMAS KABIR, SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] A B Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - ss. 2(17) and 80 and Order XXVll Rule 5A - Appellant is the Coal Mines Provident C Fund Commissioner through the Board of Trustees, constituted u/s.3 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, CMPF Organisation - Respondent, an employee in Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation [CMPFO], removed from service - He filed suit D challenging his removal from service - Preliminary issue framed in the suit as to whether in the absence of notice ul s. 80 CPC, the suit was maintainable - Matter brought upto Supreme Court which held that appellant-Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner is a "public officer" within E meaning of s.2(17) CPC and that notice u/s.80 was required to be given to him before the suit was filed by the Respondent - Respondent withdrew his suit and filed a fresh suit after serving notice upon the appellant uls. 80 CPC - Suit decreed - First Appellate Court held that since the Coal Mines F Provident Fund Commissioner was a public officer under the Union of India so as to attract the provisions of Order XXVll Rule 5A and s. 79 of CPC, the suit was bad for non-joinder of the Union of India which was a necessary party- Respondent filed Second Appeal which was allowed by the High Court - Held: The judgment of the High Court does not require any G interference, particularly when the issue raised has already been decided by Supreme Court, wherein it was categorically held that the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner is a "public servant" within the meaning of s.2(17) CPC - In view · 887 H 888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 2 S.C.R. A of tl1e aforesaid finding regarding the status of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner, the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the finding of the Trial Court on this score - It was not open to the First Appellate Court to re-open the question which had been decided by Supreme Court, at least on the B same submissions which had been made earlier that though the officer concerned was an employee of the Central Government, he no longer enjoyed the said status when he was discharging the functions of the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme - Coal c Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act - s.3. The appellant is the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner through the Board of Trustees, constituted under Section 3 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and D Miscellaneous Provisions Act, CMPF Organisation. The Respondent, a Lower Division Clerk in the service of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation [CMPFO], was removed from service. E Challenging his removal from service, the Respondent filed Title Suit No.78 of 1979. A preliminary issue was framed in the suit as to whether in the absence of notice under Section 80 CPC, the suit was maintainable. Aggrieved, Respondent filed Civil Revision F in the High Court, which held that since the Appellant was not a "public officer" as defined in CPC, no notice under Section 80 was required to be served upon him before the suit was filed and held the suit to be maintainable. The appeUant, thereafter, brought the matter to this Court and G in Civil Appeal No.1932 of 1982 this Court reversed the finding of the Appellate Authority upon holding that the appellant-Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner is a "public officer" within the meaning of Section 2(17) of CPC and that notice under Section 80 was required to be H given to him before the suit was filed by the Respondent. COAL MINES P.F. COMMR. THR. BOARD OF TRUSTEE 889 v. RAMESH CHANDRA JHA Subsequently, Respondent withdrew his Title Suit A No.78of1979 and filed a fresh suit being Title Suit No.102 · of 1990 after serving notice upon the Appellant under Section 80 CPC. The suit was decreed in favour of the Respondent. The appellant preferred Title Appeal. The_ First Appellate Court held that since the Coal Mines B Provident Fund Commissioner was a public officer under the Union of India so as to attract the provisions of Order XXVll Rule SA and Section 79 of CPC, the suit was bad for non-joinder of the Union of India which was a· necessary party. Aggrieved, the Respondent filed c Second Appeal whi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.