Jagat Singh vs Escorts Limited

V.K. Jhanji, J.—Petitioner Jagat Singh was appointed as Helper by M/s. Escorts Limited, Faridabad on 1-10-1963. During the course of his employment, he was promoted as Gas Cutting Profile Cutter Operator. At the time of joining the service, the petitioner declared his date of birth as 19-4-1932. In July, 1989 he was informed that as per rules, he would be retired on April 18, 1990. Apprehending that respondent may retire him on 18-4-1990, he filed a suit for declaration claiming that his date of birth was 18-9-1936 and he could be retired only on 18-9-1994. Along with the suit, he filed an application for grant of ad-interim injunction. The suit as well as the application was contested by the respondent-Company who apart from challenging the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, also controverted the allegation made by the petitioner in the plaint as well as in the application.

Learned Sub-Judge 1st Class, Faridabad granted ad-interim injunction as he was of the view that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Respondent filed appeal before the Additional District Judge who vide impugned order allowed the appeal and dismissed the application for ad-interim injunction. Appeal was allowed primarily on the ground that the petitioner has alternative and efficacious remedy by approaching the authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Additional District Judge also took the view that prima facie Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to temporary injunction. This order is being challenged by way of this civil revision in this Court.

Mr. Harash Aggarwal, learned counsel contents that the finding of the first Appellate Court that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction is against the dictum of judgment as reported in (Sukhi Ram v. State of Haryana 1982 Lab I. C. 1282) and, therefore, is liable to be set aside.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to grant of ad-interim injunction. I need not go into the matter as to whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction or not because this matter is yet to be decided by the Court trying the suit. The point can be decided only after the parties to the suit are allowed to lead evidence. Petitioner was to retire on the basis of the record with the respondent-Company on 19-4-1990 and he having already retired is not entitled to continue on the strength of ad-interim injunction. In case, petitioner succeeds in his suit, then it is not disputed that the trial Court shall grant all consequential reliefs to the petitioner. In order to obtain temporary injunction, petitioner is not only to show prima facie case in his favour but also has to prove as to what irreparable loss will be caused to him if injunction is not granted. In the present case, no irreparable loss is going to be caused to the petitioner because the loss can be measured in terms of money. At the time of decision of the suit, the trial Court can grant all consequential reliefs to the petitioner.

Consequently, the civil revision is dismissed but with no order as to costs. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to prove before the trial Court that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Trial Court shall decide the issue of jurisdiction along with other issues on merits.