LexMILKHI RAM versus HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 1131 [2021] 6 S.C.R. 1131 1131 MILKHI RAM v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (Civil Appeal No. 1346 of 2010) OCTOBER 08, 2021 [R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Termination – Suit before civil court – Maintainability of – Held: Civil court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a suit structured on the provisions of the ID Act – Thus, in the present case the decree favouring the appellant-employee is a legal nullity – Finding of the High Court to this extent, upheld – However, considering the hardship to the appellant, the arrear paid pursuant to the court’s decree not to be recovered. Dismissing the appeal, the Court Held: 1.1 The civil courts may have the limited jurisdiction in service matters, but jurisdiction may not be available to Court to adjudicate on orders passed by disciplinary authority. The authorities specified under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 including the appropriate government and the industrial courts perform various functions and the ID Act provides for a wider definition of “termination of service”, the condition precedent of termination of service. The consequence of infringing those, are also provided in the ID Act. When a litigant opts for common law remedy, he may choose either the civil court or the industrial forum. In the present matter, the appellant has clearly founded his claim in the suit, on the provision of the ID Act and the employer therefore is entitled to raise a jurisdictional objection to the proceedings before the civil court. The courts below including the executing court negated the jurisdictional objection. The High Court in Revision, however overturned the lower court’s order and declared that the decree in favour of the plaintiff is hit by the principle of coram non judice and therefore, the same is a nullity. This Court is unable to accept the view propounded by the courts below and is of the considered opinion that the civil court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a suit structured on the A B C D E F G H 1132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 6 S.C.R. provisions of the ID Act. The decree favouring the plaintiff is a legal nullity and the finding of the High Court to this extent is upheld. However, considering the hardship to the terminated employee, the arrear sum paid to him pursuant to the court’s decree, sould not be recovered. [Paras 13, 14, 16 and 17][1135-E-H; 1136-A-B, E-F] Rajasthan SRTC & Ors. Vs. Khadarmal 2006 (1) SCC 59; Rajasthan SRTC & Anr. vs. Ugma Ram Choudhary 2006 (1) SCC 61; Rajasthan SRTC vs. Krishna Kant 1995 (5) SCC 75 : [1995] 3 SCR 1118; Rajasthan SRTC vs. Zakir Hussain 2005 (7) SCC 447 : [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 786 – relied on. Transport Corporation and Ors. vs. Mohar Singh 2008 (5) SCC 542 : [2008] 6 SCR 890 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2008] 6 SCR 890 referred to para 11 [1995] 3 SCR 1118 relied on para 15 [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 786 relied on para 15 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1346 of 2010. From the Judgment and Order dated 06.11.2018 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Civil Revision No.16 of 2006. Ajit Singh Pundir, Arijeet Singh, Advs. for the Appellant. Naresh K. Sharma, Adv. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HRISHIKESH ROY, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ajit Singh Pundir, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (plaintiff). Also heard Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (defendant). 2. The challenge here is to the judgment dated 6.11.2008 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh whereunder the defendant’s Civil Revision No. 16/2006 was allowed with the observation that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the civil suit based on the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the ID ACT”) and therefore, the judgment A B C D E F G H 1133 and decree in favour of the plaintiff are a nullity. The Court also opined that a plea on absence of jurisdiction can be raised even at the stage of execution of proceedings. 3. The appellant was a daily wage employee under the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”). The service of the temporary employee was dispensed with by order dated 1.1.1985 issued by the Executive Engineer. This was challenged in the Civil Suit No. 100/1985. The plaintiff claimed to have rendered uninterrupted service for 2778 days and asserted the right to be regularized after completion of 240 days of continuous service. The defendant per- cont
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.