RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. MANAGING DIRECTOR & ANR. versus RAMESH KUMAR SHARMA

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 113 · Decided: 16-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
113
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. MANAGING
DIRECTOR & ANR.
v.
RAMESH KUMAR SHARMA
(Civil Appeal No. 7472 of 2011)
JANUARY 16, 2020
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – ss. 2(k), s.2-A – Imposition of
fine on the respondents-workmen by the appellant-management –
Assailed by respondents by filing suit in 2005 inter alia for permanent
injunction – Appellant filed application u/Or. VII, r.11, CPC for
rejection of the plaint and relegation of the respondents to the remedy
under the 1947 Act – Dismissed – Revision petition dismissed by the
High Court – On appeal, held: 1947 Act is an alternative dispute
resolution mechanism for the benefit of the workmen to provide
speedy, inexpensive, informal and unencumbered by the plethora
of procedural laws – Object is thus, to protect the workmen – In the
present case, the principles as set out in para 9 of the judgment in
the Premier Automobiles Ltd. case would govern – Present case
involves recovery of certain fine amount which cannot be said to
be covered by s.2-A of the 1947 Act – Workmen in their wisdom (or
possibly, lack of it) approached the civil court and have been left
high and dry for the last fifteen years without any adjudication on
merits of their claims – Suit has not even been proceeded with on
the basis that matter is pending before Supreme Court – No ground
made out to interfere with the impugned order – Civil Judge to
forthwith proceed to try the suit and endeavour to complete the
trial and pronounce the judgment, if not already pronounced, in
the maximum period of six months from the date of receipt of the
order –  Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. VII, r.11.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. On examination, it is found that the principles
set out in the Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram
Wadke of Bombay & Ors. would govern i.e. as set out in para 9.
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 113
113
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
114
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
The Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is an alternative dispute
resolution mechanism for the benefit of the workmen to provide
“speedy, inexpensive, informal and unencumbered by the plethora
of procedural laws. The object is thus, to protect the workmen.
The impugned orders are also, in a sense interlocutory in
character. The present case involves recovery of certain fine
amount which cannot be said to be covered by Section 2-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act. The workmen in their wisdom (or
possibly, lack of it) approached the civil Court and have been left
high and dry for the last fifteen years without any adjudication on
merits of their claims. The impugned orders are also, in a sense
interlocutory in character. There is no ground made out to
interfere with the impugned order and the appeal is consequently
dismissed. In view of the lapse of time, the Civil Judge is directed
to forthwith proceed to try the Civil Suit No.774/2005 and
endeavour to complete the trial and pronounce the judgment, if
not already pronounced in the maximum period of six months
from the date of receipt of the order. [Paras 6, 8-12] [115-H;
118-E; 119-A-C]
Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram
Wadke of Bombay & Ors. (1976) 1 SCC 496 : [1976] 1
SCR 427 – relied on.
C.A. No. 7475/2011, C.A. No. 7474/2011, C.A. No.7473/
2011 & C.A. No. 7476/2011
The appeals are dismissed in view of the order passed above in
Civil Appeal No.7472/2011.
Case Law Reference
[1976] 1 SCR 427
relied on
Para 6
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7472
of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated  27.02.2008 of the  High
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Revision Petition
No. 130 of 2006.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 7475, 7474, 7473, 7476 of 2011.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
115
S. K. Bhattacharya, L.K. Paonam, Ms. Seema Sharma, Niraj
Bobby Paonam, Mrs. Tomthinnganbi Koijam, Advs. for the Appellants.
Bankey Bihari Sharma, Yash Pal Dhingra, Parmanand Gaur, Advs.
for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court were passed :
O R D E R
Civil Appeal No.7472/2011
1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. None has appeared for the respondent(s).
3. The civil suit was filed by the workmen for declaration and
permanent injunction assailing a fine imposed on them by the appellant
management.  It is, inter alia, the plea of the respondents that what has
been done is in violation of Regulation 35 of the standing order (which is
non-statutory) in effect thus, the contractual oblig

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