STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. versus BIKAR SINGH

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 212 · Decided: 22-03-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA, AR. LAKSHMANAN

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
V. 
BIKAR SINGH 
MARCH 22, 2006 
(H.K. SEMA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Labour Law: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
Jurisdiction of Civil Court-Conductor in Haryana Roadways-Dismissal 
from service-Suit filed before civil court for declaring order null and void-
TJ.ough civil court framed issue as regards its jurisdiction but recorded no 
finding thereto and decreed the suit---Held, all courts below including High 
D Court failed to norice this important questwn of law -In the view that this 
court has been taking consistently. the civt! cuurt had not jurisdiction to 
entertain such suit and any decree passed by chi: cir ii court without jurisdiction 
is a nullity--Orders of civil and High Court set aside. 
Rajasthan State Road Tramport Corporation and Anr. v. Krishna Kant 
-
E and Ors., (19951 5 SCC 75 and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation 
....-~ 
and Ors. v. Zakir Hussain, (2005) 7 SC 447, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3951 of2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.9.2001 of the High Court of 
F Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 3273/1999. 
G 
H 
Dr. Gagender S. Chauhan, Harikesh Singh, T.V. George for the 
Appellants. 
Naresh Kaushik, Anjani Kumar Jha for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Pursuant to our order dated 22.02.2005, Mr. Joginder Singh, General 
Manager, Haryana Roadways Sirsa Depot, Sirsa, Haryana has filed a detailed 
affidavit explaining the circumstances and tendered an unqualified apology 
212 
-
·~ -
-
STATE OF HARYANA v. BIKAR SINGH 
213 
for any omission or commission said to have been committed by the A 
contemnor. We have gone through the affidavit and apology tendered by the 
contemnor which is accepted. The suo motu contempt initiated against the 
contemnor is discharged. 
This appeal is filed by the State of Haryana against the order of the 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana. 
B 
We have heard the parties. 
In view of the order that we propose to pass, it may not be necessary 
to recite all facts leading to the filing of the present appeal. The respondent 
herein was working as Conductor in the Haryana Roadways, Sirsa Depot. He C 
was dismissed from service by order dated 25.8.94 by the General Manager 
of the Haryana Roadways. The order of dismissal is preceded by an enquiry 
in which the charge was found established against him. The charge against 
the respondent was that while he was working as Conductor in the Haryana 
Roadways Depot, he collected Rs. 200/- from the passenger but did not issue D 
ticket and thereby embezzeled Rs. 200/-. Apart from that, it is also in evidence 
on record that the respondent prior to the dismissal of his service, was placed 
under suspension on several occasions and his annual increments were stopped. 
Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, he preferred an appeal before the 
Additional Transport Commissioner which was dismissed on 29.6.1995. 
Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed civil suit, namely, suit No. 1361/95 E 
before the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Sirsa inter alia seeking a decree of 
declaration that the respondent may be deemed to be in service and the orders 
dated 25.8.1994 and 28.6.1995 to be declared as null and void. The Trial 
Court framed as many as 7 issues. One of the important issue framed was 
issue No. 6, whether the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to try the present F 
suit. We are dismay to note that no finding has been recorded on this issue 
by the Trial Court. The Trial Court, however, proceeded to examine the case 
on merits, without determining the jurisdiction of the court. It is now well 
established principle of law that a decree without the jurisdiction is a nullity. 
Unfortunately, all the courts below including the High Court has failed to 
notice this important question of law. 
G 
We repeatedly made querry from the learned counsel for the respondent 
as to whether the finding has been recorded by the Trial Court regarding the 
jurisdiction of the Civil Court. We received no answer. 
We have gone through the entire judgment of the trial court and there H 
214 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2006] 3 S.C.R. 
A is no finding to that effect. In fact, the Trial Court has considered all the 7 
issues together and the finding is recorded as under:-
Issue No. 2 to 7. 
"Onus to prove all these issues was upon the defendants. But 
B 
there is no sufficient evidence led by the defendants to prove these 
issues a

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