JITENDRA NATH BISWAS versus EMPIRE OF INDIA & CEYLONE TEA CO. & ANR.

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 640 · Decided: 01-08-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.L. OZA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JITENDRA NATH BISWAS 
v. 
EMPIRE OF INDIA & CEYLONE TEA CO. & ANR. 
AUGUST 1, 1989 
B 
[G.L. OZA AND K.N. SAIKIA, JJ.] 
"' 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Sections 2A, 10, 12(5)-Employee 
whose services are terminated-Cannot seek relief of reinstatement or 
backwages in a civil suit before the Civil Court. 
f -
c 
The appellant-plaintiff, who was an employee of the respondent 
company, was dismissed from service on the bais ofa domestic enquiry 
held against him in respect of certain charges of misconduct. There-
-.l< 
upon, he filed a civil suit before the Court of Munsiff and sought the 
relief of backwages and injunction not to give effect to the order of 
dismissal. The respondents in their written statement raised inter alia 
D the plea I.hat the suit was not maintainable as the relief sought was 
available to the plllintiff nnder section 2A of the Industrial Disputes 
Act, 1947. The Trial Coort came to the conclusion that the Civil Court 
had the j~ 
to try the suit. The High Court, in revision, held 
that the nature of the relief which was sought by the appellant-plaintiff 
was such which could only be granted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 
"' 
E and therefore the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. 
Before this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant (i) on 
the basis of the language of section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure the 
civil court bad jurisdiction to try all kinds of suits except those which 
were either expressly or impliedly barred, and the High Court was not 
F right in reaching the conclusion that it was impliedly barred; (ii) as the 
~ 
remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act was discretionary, it could 
not be said that there was a remedy available to the appellant under the 
scheme of the Act and tltus the jurisdiction of the civil court could not 
be barred by implication. On the other hand, it was contended on 
behalf of the respondents that (i) the relief sought by the appellant in 
G 
snbstance was the relief of reinstatement with backwages which relief 
was available only in the Industrial Disputes Act; (ii) the Act itself 
provided the procedure and remedy and it was not open to the appellant 
i 
to approach the civil court for getting the relief which he could get only 
under tlie scheme of the Act; and (iii) the discretion of the Government 
to make a reference or not was not arbitrary. 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court. 
640 
\,-
" 
L 
' 
., 
J.N. BISWAS '· EMPIRE OF INDIA 
641 
HELD: (I) It is clear that wherever the jurisdiction of the civil 
A 
court was expressly or impliedly barred, the civil court will have no 
jurisdiction. [644B] 
(2) It is clear that except under the industrial law, under the law 
of contract and the civil law, an employee whose services are terminated 
could not seek the relief of reinstatement or backwages. At best, he 
could seek the relief of damages for breach of contract. 
(3) The manner in which the relief has been framed by the 
appellant in this case, although "" seeks a declaration and injunction 
but in substance it is nothing but the relief of reinstatement and back-
wages. This relief could only be available to a workman under the 
Industrial Disputes Act. [644C-D] 
( 4) The discretion of the, State Government for making a 
reference under section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not 
arbitrary and it would not be said that the reference to the labour 
court or tribunal is not available to a worker who raises an indus-
trial dispute. I 646G I 
Bombay Union of Journalists & Ors. v. The State of Bombay & 
Anr., [1964] 6 SCR 22; Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. 
Ramratan Mahato, AIR 1973 Cal 258; Dhulabhai etc. v. State of 
Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1969 SC 78; Nanoo Asan Madhavan v. State of 
Kerala, [1970] Vol. I LW Kerala 272, referred to. 
(5) In view of the language of section IO, read with section 12(5) 
of the Industrial Disputes Act, an adequate remedy was available to the 
appellant under the scheme of the lndiistrial Disputes Act itself which 
is the Act which proyides for the relief of reinstatement and back-
wages which in fact the appellant sought before the civil court hy 
filing a suit. [648B] 
(6) The scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act clearly excludes 
the jurisdiction of the civil court by implication in respect of re-
medies which are available under the Industrial Disputes Act and 
for which a complete procedure and machinery has been provided 
in this Act. [649F-G] 
CIVIL A

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