Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another vs Ram Swaroop

Mohammad Rafiq, J.—This is defendant''s second appeal filed against judgment and decree dated 28.08.1999 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby judgment and decree dated 15.11.1990 passed by learned Additional Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration, has been affirmed. Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration contending therein that he was working on the post of Conductor with the defendant-appellant Corporation. His services were terminated vide order dated 25.03.1987 on the allegation of his allowing four passengers without ticket in the bus of defendant Corporation. He challenged the termination order on the ground that at the time of inspection of the bus, neither bus-checking-report was prepared nor statements of the passengers, found without ticket, were recorded. The defendant Corporation did not conduct any departmental enquiry against the plaintiff nor was he provided an opportunity of hearing prior to passing of the termination order.

Learned counsel for defendant-appellants argued that learned trial court ought not to have entertained the suit at Jaipur because plaintiff-respondent was working at Falna Depot of the defendant Corporation, which falls within the jurisdiction of Pali District. The cause of action, if any, arisen to the plaintiff was in District Pali or Jodhpur, therefore, the learned trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. No part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. The findings recorded by learned trial court on the issue of jurisdiction was therefore perverse and erroneous. Charge against the plaintiff-respondent was for carrying passengers without ticket, which amounts to serious misconduct and thereby justified removal from service.

It is argued that the civil court has no jurisdiction in such matters. It is only the industrial tribunal which has jurisdiction to entertain such matters. The plaintiff-respondent was a workman and the defendant-appellant no. 2 should have take steps to approach the appropriate government to refer the dispute to the industrial tribunal. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.S.R.T.C. and Others Vs. Deen Dayal Sharma,

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for defendant-appellants and perused the material on record.

In so far as the question of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, this court in Mangi Lal and Another Vs. Rajendra Singh and Another - S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1774/2010 decided on 02.11.2011, dealt with similar objection as to territorial jurisdiction, wherein also RSRTC was impleaded as party through its Chairman. While relying on judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay Vs. M/s. Prasad Trading Company, this court therein held as under:-

On hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned award, I find that the judgment of Supreme Court in M/s. Patel Roadways Ltd., supra arose out of suit for damages filed against the Corporation. The Supreme Court in that case was called upon to interpret Section 20 of CPC especially Explanation thereto which provided that a Corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office at such place. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment revisited its earlier decisions on interpretation of aforesaid provisions and held that so long as the subordinate office of the Corporation is situated at a place other than headquarters, the suit would be maintainable at such place if the cause of action has arisen there. In the present case, possibly those provisions may not be applicable because a specific provision in a separate enactment, which is the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governs the field i.e. Section 166(2) according to which the claim petition could be filed before the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides. RSRTC in the present case was impleaded as non-claimant through its Chairman Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur and that was sufficient compliance of the provisions of the Act.

The plaintiff-respondent in the present case has impleaded the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, through its General Manager-cum-Managing Director, whose office is located at Jaipur and therefore, the learned trial court at Jaipur also would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Contention of learned counsel for appellants that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain this matter as the appropriate forum was the industrial tribunal as the plaintiff-respondent was the workman, is noted to be rejected. A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in its decision titled Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa - (2007) 14 SCC 41, held as follows:-

If the infringement of the Standing orders or other provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are alleged, the civil court''s jurisdiction may be held to be barred but if the suit is based on the violation of principles of common law or constitutional provisions or on other grounds, the civil court''s jurisdiction may not be held to be barred. If no right is claimed under a special statute in terms whereof the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred, the civil court will have jurisdiction.

The plaintiff-respondent has not filed the suit alleging infringement of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence in view of the said decision, the civil court would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit if the court is of the opinion that triable issue is based on fundamental rights of the plaintiff regarding infraction of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is not disputed before this court that removal of the plaintiff-respondent was made only on the ground of his carrying four passengers without ticket, but that has been done without following due process of law. The defendant Corporation has not conducted departmental enquiry against the plaintiff-respondent. Before passing the termination order, the plaintiff-respondent was not provided opportunity of hearing and he was terminated vide order dated 25.03.1987 which is contrary to Section 35 of the Standing orders and is violative of the principles of natural justice.

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the defendant-appellants in the light of the findings concurrently recorded by both the courts below, I find that the issues involved in the present case relate to questions of fact and there is concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below, which cannot be interfered with by this court in second appeal u/s 100 of the C.P.C. All these questions do not raise any question of law much less any substantial question of law in the meaning of Section 100 of the CPC. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. Consequent upon dismissal of appeal, the stay application, filed therewith, does not does not survive and same is also dismissed.