RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION --I & ANR. versus BAL MUKUND BAIRWA

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 161 · Decided: 12-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Reference answered
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 161 
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
A 
--I 
& ANR. 
v 
BAL MUKUND BArRWA 
Civil Appeal No. 328 of 2005 
JANUARY 12, 1009 
B 
--' 
(S.B. SINHA, DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ASOK 
KUMAR GANGULY, JJ) 
Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
s. 9 - Jurisdiction of civil court to entertain suits ques- c 
tioning orders passed by Rajasthan State Road Transport Cor-
poration terminating services of its employees - Held: Cor-
poration is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Con-
stitution - If an act on its part is violative of the constitutional D 
provisions or mandatory requirements of a statute or statutory 
rules, or in gross violation of principles of natural justie, civil 
court will have the necessary jurisdiction to try a suit - But, if 
the employee claims his right and corresponding obligations 
only in terms of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act or 
the sister laws, civil court will have none - Road Transport 
E 
Corporations Act, 1950 - s. 45 - Rajasthan State Road Trans-
port Corporation Employees Service Regulations, 1965 - In:-
dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s. 2 (s) - Industrial Employment 
(Standing Orders) Act, 1946 - Rajasthan State Road Trans-
port Workers and Workshop Employees Sanding Orders, 1965 F 
- Constitution of lndida, 1950 -Article 14 - Natural justice. 
In the instant matters a Division Bench of the Court 
made the reference for resolution of a purported conflict 
in two three-Judge Bench judgments in the cases of 
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another G 
vs. Krishna Kant and others 
1 and Rajasthan SRTC and 
1 
others vs. Khadarmal. The issue for consideration before 
1. 
1995(5) sec 75 
2. 
2006(1) sec 59 
161 
H 
162 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 
A the Court was as to the jurisdiction of the civil court to 
entertain suits questioning orders of termination passed 
by appellant-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation 
against its employees. 
Answering the reference, the Court 
8 · , 
HELD: 1.1 The jurisdiction of civil court in terms of 
. s.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to try suits of 
civil nature is a plenary one. The provision relating to bar 
to entertain a suit must, therefore, be laid down by a stat-
ute either expressly or by necessary implication. If a stat-
e ute while creating rights and obligations did not consti-
tute a forum for enforcing the same, plenary jurisdiction 
of the civil court in view of Premier Automobiles Ltd could 
not be held to have been taken away. [para 9 and 16) 
[89-F, G, H; 181-A] 
D 
The Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. Kamlekar Shantaram 
Wadke of Bombay & ors. (1976) 1 SCC 496; Narinder Mohan 
Arya vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors. (2006) 4 SCC 
713; Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank 2009 (1) 
SCALE 284; Dhulabai vs. State of M. P (1968) 3 S.C.R. 662; 
E Church of North India vs. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai & ors. (2005) 
10 SCC 760; United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Ajay Sinha & 
Anr 2008 (8) SCALE 509 - relied on. 
Wolverhampton New Waterworks Co. vs. Hawkesford 
F 
(1859) 6 CB (NS) 336: 28LJ CP 242:141 ER 486 - relied on. 
Rajasthan SRTC & Ors. Vs. Khadarmal 2006(1) SCC 
59 - referred to. 
1.2 A dispute arising in between employer and em-
ployee may or may not be an industrial dispute. The ap-
G pellant-Corporation is a State within the meaning of Ar-
ticle 12 of the Constitution of India. If an act on its part is 
found to be wholly unreasonable or arbitrary, the same 
would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of In-
dia. In certain situations, even gross violation of the prin-
H ciples of natural justice has been held to come within the 
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT 
163 
CORPORATION & ANR. V BAL MUKUND BAIRWA 
ambit of Article 14. Any order passed in violation of the 
A 
-I 
principles of natural justice save and except certain con-
tingencies of cases, would be a nullity. In the event it is 
found that the action on the part of State is violative of the 
constitutional provisions or the mandatory requirements 
of a statute or statutory rules the civil court would have 
B 
the jurisdiction to direct reinstatement with full back 
wages. However, if the claim relates to violation of a right 
of a workman and a corresponding obligation on the part 
' ·i 
of the employer under the Industrial Disputes Act or the 
Certified Standing brders, a civil suit may not lie. But, if c 
no procedure has been followed as laid down by the statu-
tory Regulation or
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.