LexSITARAM KASHIRAM KONDA versus PIGMENT CAKES & CHEMICALS MFG. CO.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
125
SITARAM KASHIRAM KONDA
A
'
v.
PIGMENT CAKES & CHEMICALS MFG. CO.
July 27, 1979
[N. L. UNTWALIA AND A. P. SEN, JJ.]
B
• ,,,.
Tennina1ion of 5t"FVicc-Declaratory suit to set aside the tc1111i11atio11 and for
' .. _.,,.-
?)
' ,
a1rarding con1pe11sation--Disputc whether of a ciril nature cogni;:;ab!c by a
civil court.
The appellant fikd a suit against his employer, the re.spcnde.ut, for a :leciara-
tion that lie had b{·cn removed from service illegally and \'i'ithout any reason
C
and that he should be reinstated in his former job with due benefits an<l
advantages.
He also claimed compensation. The trial court held
that
the
dispute raised by the appe1lant was in the nature of an industrial dispute and
that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the san1e.
The First Appellate
Court allowed the ;:ippt:ai and held that the dispute raised ·\'\'as of a· civil nature
and the case was cognizable by a civil court. In the
respondent's
second
appeal, the I-ligh Court agreed with the1 vie'v of the trial court and held that
D
the appella·nt bad not claimed damages by pleading wrongful disn1issal and
breach of the contract cf his service, and that the facts pleaded in the plaint
sho\ved that the dispute \Vas an industrial dispute cognizable only by an industrial
court and not bf a ch:il court.
In the further appeal to this Court the point for consideration was whether
un the facts pleaded by the appellant the dispute \Vas an industrial dispute
E
cognizable cnly by an industrial court and not by a civil court.
Allowing the appral,
HELD :(1) It is not quite correct to say that the
~nit as ftlc<l by the
<:.·ppellant is not nlainiainablc at all in a civil court. The 111ain rdicf.s asked
for by the appellant which when granted will aniount to 5pecific perfonnan(;c
of the contract of service and, therefore, they cannot be
granted.
But
the
appellant in the alternative has also claimed for awarding compensation to
him.
[127A-C]
(2) Reading the plaint as a whole, it can legitimately be culled out
that
the appellar.t had made out a case that he was wrongfuliy disn1issed from
service. This relief could be granted by the civil court if it found that the
plaintiff's ca<>e was true. The High Court was not right in saying that no
such case had at ;-fll been made in the plaint. To this limited extent the n1attcr
could be examined by the civil court. [127D-E]
Dr. S. B. Dutt v. University of Delhi, [1959] SCR 1236; S. R. Tewari v. Distt.
Boa.'"d J4gra & .Anr., rJ964] 3 SCR 55; Indian Airline\-; Corp. v. Sukluleo Rui,
[1971] Suppl. SCR 510, Premier Automobiles Ltd. v.
Kamlekar
Shantaram
Wadke of Bombay & Ors., [1976] I SCR 427; referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1969.
F
G
R
126
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ l ?80] l S.C.R.
A
From the Judgment and Order dated 20th June, 1968 of !lie
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 48/66.
K. Jayaram, Amicus Curiae for the Appellant.
Y. S. Chiialey, M. V. Goswami and Ambrish Kumar for the Res-
pondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UNTWALIA, J. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit in the Trial Court
in the year 1963 alleging certain unjustifiable aud illegal actions on
the part of his employer,. the respondent in this appeal.
The reliefs
claimed in the suit weJCe the following :-
"(a) That it may be declared that the defendant haa re-
moved the plaintiff from service illegally and without
any reason.
(b) That it may be declared that the defendairt failed aud
neglected to re-employ th;: plaintiff
although
the
defendant restarted the factory.
( c) That the defendant be ordered to reinstate the plain-
tiff to his former job with due benefits and advan-
tages.
( d) In the alternative the defondant may be ordered to
pay to the plaintiff such compensation as
to
the
Hoh'ble Court may deem fit.
( e) For costs of the suit.
(f) For such further and other reliefs as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit."
On contest by the respondent, the Trial Court held that the dispute
raised by the appellant was in the nature of au industrial dispute and
hence the Civil Court had to jurisdiction to try it.
The appellant
took the matter in appeal before the First Appellate Court. It allowed
th·;: appeal and held that the dispute raised was of a civil nature and
the case was cognizable by a Civil Court. The respondent filed the serond
appeal in the High Court and the High Court has agreeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.