LexR.S.R.T.C. AND ORS. versus RAMDHARA INDOLIYA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A R.S.R.T.C. AND ORS. v. RAMDHARA INDOLIY A JULY 11, 2006 B [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 2(k) and 2-A-Termination of sen1ice-Suit for reinstatement-Jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain- C Held: Daily wager being workman and dispute being an industrial dispute, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit---Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 9. The qu~stion which arose for consideration in this appeal was whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit for reinstatement of a D workman. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: Respondent-daily wager failed to approach the Industrial Court, but approached the Civil Court. High Court has committed a grave error in E not considering the fact that the respondent being workman and a dispute being an industrial dispute, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit for reinstatement. Trial Court which passed the decree has got no pecuniary jurisdiction and, therefore, the decree passed by the Trial Court i; without jurisdiction. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled for any payment by way of salary or other wages. He is also not entitled for any reinstatement or back F wages. However, if he has already been paid some amount, the same amount may not be recovered from him. [449-C-E; 450-C-D) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. and Ors. v. Zakir Hussain, [20051 7 sec 447, relied on. G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4670 of2006. H From the Judgment and Order dated 3.9.2002 of the High Court of Rajasthan, .Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 13811997. 448 R.S.RTC. v. RA MD HARA INDOLIYA [LAKSHMANAN,J.] 449 Sushi! Kumar Jain, H.D. Thanvi and Sarad Singhania for the Appellants. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Although respondent is served, nobody appears for the respondent. This appeal is directed against the final judgment dated, 3rd September, 2002 of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 138of1997. B We have heard Mr. S.K. Jain learned counsel for the appellants. The respondent was appointed as a Conductor on daily wages by the Corporation. C His services were terminated as the same were not required by the Corporation. The High Court, without considering the fact that the respondent being daily wager has no substance right to hold the post, however, has committed serious error in dismissing the second appeal filed by the Corporation and affriming the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court and also D of the Trial Court. In our view, the High Court has committed a grave error in not considering the fact that the respondent being workman and a dispute being an industrial dispute, Civil Court has no jurisdiction and try the suit for reinstatement. Trial Court which passed the decree has got no pecuniary jurisdiction and therefore, the decree passed by the Trial Court is without jurisdiction. The above submission made by Mr. S.K. Jain merit acceptance. E In fact, in the written statement filed by the appellant Corporation the question of jurisdiction has been specifically raised. The Court has also framed an issue in regard to the jurisdiction and hearing by the Civil Court. However, the said issue has not been rightly considered and properly answered. The case on hand in covered by a very recent decision of this Court F reported in [2005] 7 SCC 44 7 decided by Mrs. Justice Ruma! Pal and Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan). The said appeal was filed by the very same Road Transport Corporation, against its workman, who was appointed as Conductor on probation and his services were terminated by the Corporation, which was challenged by the workman. The very same workman had approached the G Civil Court and obatined a decree, which was affirmed by the Appellate Court and also by the High Court, against which Civil Appeal No. 5176 of2005 was filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation in this Court. This Court, after hearing the counsel appearing for the respective parties, held that the only remedy available to the workman was by way of reference under the Industiral Disputes Act and not by way of suit. This Court also held that the H 450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A workman in that case was also not entitled to the protection under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. This Co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.