LexRAJASTHAN SRTC & ORS versus MOHAR SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2008] 6 S.C.R. 890 RAJASTHAN SRTC & ORS II. MOHAR SINGH (Civil Appeal No. 2945 of 2008) APRIL 24, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 9: Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Scope and ambit of - In C respect of service! labour matters - Employer-Corporation created under a statute - Termination of employee - He filed civil suit challenging the same - Dispute raised by employer that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit - Held: Civil Courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature D excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred - If a right is claimed under the Industrial Disputes Act or the sister laws, jurisdiction of Civil Court would be barred, but if no such right is claimed, Civil Court will have ;urisdiction - On facts, employer-Corporation is a 'State' within E meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution - If action on its part was violative of the Constitutional Provisions or mandatory requirements of a statute or statutory rules, the Civil Court had ;urisdiction to direct reinstatement of the concerned employee with full back wages - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 12 F and 14 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Road Corporation Act, 1951. First Appellant is a statutory corporation constituted and incorporated under the Road Corporation Act, 1951. Respondent, driver of a bus employed by the Corporation, G allegedly committed misconduct. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated and Respondent was found guilty, consequent to which he was dismissed from service with immediate effect. Appeal preferred by Respondent was dismissed by the Appellate authority. H 890 " RAJASTHAN SRTC & ORS. v. MOHAR SINGH 891 Respondent filed civil suit challenging the order of A termination as well as the order of the Appellate Authority. Trial Court decreed the suit holding that the orders impugned before it were illegal, bad in law and non-est being against the principles of natural justice. The order passed by the Civil Court was upheld by both the First 8 .,;._ Appellate Court and the High Court. In appeal to this Court, the contention of Appellant is that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. c Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. S. 9, CPC provides that all Civil Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. The jurisdiction of the Civil D Court apparently is not expressly barred by the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. [Para 10] [895-F, G] 1.2. Civil Court may have a limited jurisdiction in service matters but it cannot be said to have no E jurisdiction at all to entertain a suit. It may not be entitled to sit in appe;;il over the order passed in the disciplinary proceedings or on the quantum of punishment imposed. It may not in a given case direct reinstatement in service having regard to Section 14(1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act, F 1963 but, where the right is claimed by the plaintiff in terms of common law or under a statute other than the one which created a new right for the first time and when a forum has also been created for enforcing the said right, the Civil Court shall also have jurisdiction to entertain a suit where the plaintiff claim benefit of a fundamental G right as adumbrated under Article 14 of the Constitution or mandatory provisions of statute or statutory rules ... governing the terms and conditions of service. [Para 11] [895-H; 896-A, B, C] H 892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R. A 1.3. A decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority ~ under the Road Corporation Act, 1951 ordinarily would be a subject matter of suit. The Civil Court, however, exercises a limited jurisdiction. If however, the concerned employee is a 'workman' within the meaning of the B provisions of the 1947 Act, he apart from the common law remedies, may take recourse to the remedies available .... before an industrial court. When a right accrues under two statutes vis-a-vis the common law right, the concerned employee will have an option to chose his c forum. Also, there is a distinction between a right which is conferred upon an employer under a statute for the first time and also providing for a remedy and the one which is created to determine the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.