RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATLON AND ORS. versus ZAKIR HUSSAIN

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 786 · Decided: 22-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT 
CORPORA TlON AND ORS. 
v. 
ZAKIR HUSSAIN 
AUGUST 22, 2005 
[RUMA PAL AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Labour Law : 
C 
Conductor with State Road Corporation-During probation period his 
services found unsaiisfact~ry and terminated-Suit for declaration that 
termination was illegal decreed on the ground that no enquiry was held-
Correctness of-Held : Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain 
and try the suit-Remedies provided under the Industrial Disputes Act 
D should have been approached especially as reliance was placed by the 
employee on standing orders of the Corporation-Termination without 
enquiry was proper as it was not founded on misconduct and employee 
being a probationer, had no substantive right to hold that post-Protection 
under Article 31 I of the Constitution of India was no available to employees 
E 
of Corporation. 
The respondent was appointed as conductor with the respondent 
-Corporation and was on probation for two years. His services were 
terminated on being found to be unsatisfactory. He referred an appeal 
against his termination before departmental appellate authority. On 
F dismissal of this appeal, he filed a suit in a civil court. The suit was 
decreed with the civil court holding that it had jurisdiction to try the 
suit and declared that since services of respondent were terminated 
without holding any enquiry, it was illegal and against natural justice 
principles. First and second appeals of the appellants against the decree 
were dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
G 
Appellant contended that (a) the dispute between the parties being 
an industrial dispute, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain 
and \ry the suit; (b) as the respondent was appointed on probation and 
the s·ervices were terminated during probation, it was not obligatory on 
H the part of the Corporation to hold an enquiry before terminating the 
786 
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION i·, ZAK.IR HUSSAIN 
787 
services; (c) the respondent being only an employee of the Corporation A 
and not a Government servant, was not entitled to protection of Article 
311(2) of the Constitution of India. 
Respondent contended that his services were not termination 
simpliciter. It was based on remarks of checking staff which found B 
passengers without ticket when he was on duty. Therefore, his termi-
nation was punitive and penal, and as there was no enquiry, same was 
illegal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I.I. The respondent ought to have approached the rem-
edies provided under the Industrial Disputes Act. He has miserably 
failed to do so but approached the Civil Court, which on the facts and 
circumstances of the case has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the 
c 
SU~ 
D 
1.2. It is not in dispute that the appellant is governed by 
the Standing Orders of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation 
Workshop Employees and also governed by the terms of appointment. 
This apart, the respondent has placed reliance on the standing order and, 
therefore, the only remedy available to the respondent was by way of 
reference under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. [802-D-E) 
Premier Automobiles Limited v. Kama/kar Shantaram Wadke and 
Ors., (1975) 2 LLJ 445; Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation And 
Anr. v. Krishna Kant and Others, [1995) 5 SCC 75 and U.P. State Bridge 
Corporation Ltd and Others. v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karamchari 
Sangh, [2004) 4 SCC 268, followed. 
E 
F 
Jitendra Nath Biwas v. Mis. Empire of India and Ceylone Tea Co. and 
Another, [1989) 3 SCC 582; B.S. Bhartiv. IBP Co. ltd., [2004) 7 SCC 550; 
Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam and Ors. v. Municipal Corpn. of Ahmedabad G 
and Anr., )2002) 2 SCC 542 and A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayck and Another, 
(1998) SC 1531, relied on. 
Krishnan and Another v. East India Distilleries and Sugar Factories 
Ltd. Nellikuppam and Another, (1964) I LLJ 217 and Mailura H 
788 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A Mills Company Ltd. v. Guruvammal and Another, (1967) 2 LLJ 297, 
approved 
2.1. The respondent being a probationer has got no substantive 
right to hold the post and was not entitled to a decree of declaration as 
B erroneously granted by the lower Courts and also of the High Court. 
2.2. It is also settled that the employees of the Corporation are not 
civil servants and, therefore, they are not entitled to protection under 
Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Their t

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