& Ors Vs. Ramdhara Indoliya  Insc 396 (11 July 2006)
Ar. Lakshmanan & Lokeshwar Singh Panta Dr. Ar . Lakshmanan, J.
respondent is served, nobody appears for the respondent.
appeal is directed against the final judgment dated 3rd September, 2002 of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, in S.B.Civil
Second Appeal No.138 of 1997.
have heard Mr. S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants. The respondent
was appointed as a Conductor on daily wages by the Corporation. His services
were terminated as the same were not required by the Corporation. The High
Court, without considering the fact that the respondent being daily wager has
no substantive right to hold the post, however, has committed serious error in
dismissing the second appeal filed by the Corporation and affirming the
judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court and also of the Trial Court.
In our view, the High Court has committed a grave error in not considering the
fact that the respondent being workman and a dispute being an industrial
dispute, Civil Court has no jurisdiction and try the
suit for reinstatement. Trial Court which passed the decree has got no
pecuniary jurisdiction and, therefore, the decree passed by the Trial Court is
without jurisdiction. The above submission made by Mr. S.K. Jain merit
acceptance. In fact, in the written statement filed by the appellant
Corporation, the question of jurisdiction has been specifically raised. The
Court has also framed an issue in regard to the jurisdiction and hearing by the
Civil Court. However, the said issue has not
been rightly considered and properly answered.
case on hand is covered by a very recent decision of this Court reported in
2005 (7) SCC 447 (decided by Mrs. Justice Ruma Pal and Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan).
The said appeal was filed by the very same Road Transport Corporation, against
its workman, who was appointed as Conductor on probation and his services were
terminated by the Corporation, which was challenged by the workman. The very
same workman had approached the Civil Court and obtained a decree, which was affirmed by the Appellate
Court and also by the High Court, against which Civil Appeal No.5176 of 2005
was filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation in this Court. This
Court, after hearing the counsel appearing for the respective parties, held
that the only remedy available to the workman was by way of reference under the
Industrial Disputes Act and not by way of a suit. This Court also held that the
workman in that case was also not entitled to the protection under Article
311(2) of the Constitution of India.
Court also held that if the Court has no jurisdiction, the jurisdiction cannot
be conferred by any order of the Court. This Court also held that where an Act
creates an obligation and enforces the performance in a specified manner, the
performance cannot be enforced in any other manner. The respondent in that case
has failed to approach the remedies provided under the Industrial Disputes Act.
instant case also, the respondent, who is also similarly placed as in the other
case covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, has failed to approach the
Industrial Court, but approached the Civil Court, which on the facts and
circumstances of the case had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.
this judgment (supra) rendered by this Court squarely applies to the facts and
circumstances of this case. In our view, the respondent is not entitled for any
payment by way of salary or other wages. He is also not entitled for any
reinstatement or back wages. However, if the respondent has already been paid
some amount, the same amount may not be recovered from him. We make it clear
that the respondent shall not be entitled to continue in service any further
and he shall not be entitled for any wages except to already paid to him. The
respondent shall be discharged forthwith.
Appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no orders as to costs.