Competent Authority and Another vs Jagabhai Motibhai Vaghela

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of present appeal, the Appellant has inter alia challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 24th November 1998 passed by the Assistant Judge, Rajkot in Regular Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1992, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31st March 1992 passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajkot in Regular Civil Suit No. 7 of 1991.

It is the case of the Appellant that the Respondent was serving as a conductor of S.T. Bus with Surendranagar S.T. Depot and on 15th December 1989 when the checking squad carried out raid of the bus in which he was a conductor, the irregularities were noticed by the checking squad. Thereafter, the Respondent was chargesheeted and departmental inquiry was conducted against the Respondent, wherein he was held guilty and the Respondent was issued a show cause notice as to why he should not be dismissed from service. In pursuance of the said notice, he preferred Regular Civil Suit No. 906 of 1990 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajkot, which ultimately came to be allowed vide judgment and decree dated 31st March 1992 by the 4th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajkot.

2.1 Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the Appellant herein preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1992 before the Assistant Judge, Rajkot, which ultimately came to be dismissed by the lower Appellate Court confirming the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. Hence, present appeal.

Present appeal has been admitted for hearing the parties on the following substantial question of law:

Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction in the matter pertaining to Industrial Disputes Act?

Whether appropriate Competent Court is Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act or Civil Court can be approached for grievances under the Industrial Disputes Act?

Whether the Civil Court can entertain a suit though alternative remedy of departmental appeals is provided?

Having considered the rival contentions raised by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the documentary evidence produced on record and the impugned judgment and order as well as the substantial questions of law, it transpires that the Courts below have after going through the relevant aspects of the matter rightly came to the impugned conclusion, which is just and proper. So far as the aforesaid issued are concerned, the lower Appellate Court has in paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment and order assigned detailed reasons which are just and proper. In support of the said findings, the learned advocate for the Respondent Mr. Raxit Dholakia has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa, . It is pertinent to note that the said decision is the complete answer to the substantial questions raised before this Court by the Appellant. It would be beneficial to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the said decision as under:

Applying the said principles to the fact of the cases wherein the Plaintiffs alleged that the enquiries were conducted in violation of the Standing Orders whereas the stand taken by the Corporation was that the requirements contained in the Standing Orders were complied with, the Bench, however, noticed that no Regulation had been framed by the Corporation in terms of Section 45 of the Act insofar as the employees answering the description of ''workman'' as defined in Section 2(s) of the 1947 Act are concerned. It appears that therein no dispute was raised that the provisions of the Standing Orders were applicable. The question, therefore, which inter alia arose for consideration was as to whether in holding the departmental proceeding the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders were violated or not. While holding that Civil Court''s jurisdiction to entertain the suit was bared, it was held: (Krishna Kant case, SCC pp. 96, para 37)

It is directed that the principles enunciated in this judgment shall apply to all pending matters except where decrees have been passed by the trial Court and the matters are pending in appeal or second appeal, as the case may be. All suits pending in the trial Court shall be governed by the principles enunciated herein-as also the suits and proceedings to be instituted hereinafter.

With greatest of respect to the learned judges, if a statute while creating rights and obligations did not constitute a forum for enforcing the same, plenary jurisdiction of the civil court in view of Premier Automobiles Ltd. (supra) could not be held to have been taken away. There was also no occasion to extend the scope of the dicta laid down therein. Certified Standing Orders lay down the terms and conditions of service. It did not create any new right such as Section 25F, 25G or 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Any new right created under a statute would ordinarily be a right in favour of an employee over and above the general law. Let us, however, proceed on the basis that the dicta laid down therein is correct.

xxx

A dispute arising in between an employer and employee may or may not be an industrial dispute. The dispute may be in relation to or arising out of a fundamental right of the employee, or his right under a Parliamentary Act and the Regulations framed thereunder, and/or a right arising under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act or the sister laws and may relate to same or similar rights or different rights, or even may be based on common law right or contractual right. The question in regard to the jurisdiction of the civil court must, therefore, be addressed having regard to the fact as to which rights or obligations are sought to be enforced for the purpose of invoking or excluding the jurisdiction of a civil Court.

In view of aforesaid and in light of the aforesaid decision of this Court, I am of the opinion that the Courts below have assigned cogent and convincing reasons for arriving at the conclusion. Over and above the aforesaid reasons, I adopt the reasons assigned by the Courts below and do not find any illegality much less any perversity in the findings recorded. I am in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the Courts below. No case is made out to interfere with the findings recorded by the Courts below. Hence, present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, present appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Decree be drawn accordingly.