In this civil revision, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld the trial court's finding that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging an order of dismissal based on common law rights, even when the employee is covered by the Industrial Disputes Act.
The present appeal (Civil Revision) was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1)
Civil Revision No. 1637 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 1637 of 2009 Date of Decision: 6.7.2009
Oriental Bank of Commerce and others
......Petitioners
Versus
Rajiv Gupta
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.
Present: Shri R.N.Lohan, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Shri S.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral).
The defendants are in revision aggrieved against the order dated 14.2.2009 passed by the learned trial Court, holding that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit challenging the order of dismissal of the plaintiff.
An order of termination of the services of the plaintiff was passed on 28.2.2006 on account of conviction of the plaintiff by the Special Judge, Patiala. In the said suit, a preliminary objection was raised by the petitioners that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction as the remedy of the plaintiff is only before the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said preliminary objection has been answered against the defendant-petitioners and, therefore, the defendants are in revision aggrieved against the said order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Jitendra Nath
Civil Revision No. 1637 of 2009 (2)
Biswas v. M/s Empire of India and Ceylone Tea Co. and another, AIR 1990 SC 255; State of Haryana and others v. Bikar Singh, AIR 2006 SC 2473 and Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam and others v. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad and another, AIR 2002 Supreme Court 997, to contend that the jurisdiction to entertain the suit challenging the order of dismissal is only before the Industrial Tribunal.
However, on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Rajasthan SRTC and others v. Mohar Singh, AIR 2008 SC 2553 and a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Sukhi Ram v. State of Haryana, 1982 PLR 717.
Recently in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another v. Bal Mukund Bairwa (2), (2009)4 Supreme Court Cases 299, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while reviewing the entire case law and considering the judgments in Jitendra Nath Biswas's case (supra) and Mohar Singh's case (supra), has held to the following effect:-
“33. 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 the civil court.
Civil Revision No. 1637 of 2009 (3)
xx xx xx
In view of the above, the proposition of law is clear that when a grievance is made in respect of violation of a right created under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the remedy provided under the aforesaid Act alone is to be availed. In the present case, the plaintiff is not challenging any right created for the first time under the Act, but challenging the order of dismissal affecting civil rights under common law and thus, the civil court, will have jurisdiction to entertain such a suit.
Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal.
Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE
06-07-2009 ds
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court is right in dismissing the revision against the trial court's finding that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging an order of dismissal under common la
Whether a suit challenging an order of dismissal falling under common law and not specifically under the Industrial Disputes Act is maintainable in a civil court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jitendra Nath Biswas v. M/s Empire of India and Ceylone Tea Co. and anotherReferred¶21
Jitendra Nath Biswas v. M/s Empire of India and Ceylone Tea Co. and another, AIR 1990 SC 255 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana and others v. Bikar SinghReferred¶21
State of Haryana and others v. Bikar Singh, AIR 2006 SC 2473 · Who else cites this
Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam and others v. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad and anotherReferred¶21
Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam and others v. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad and another, AIR 2002 Supreme Court 997 · Who else cites this
Rajasthan SRTC and others v. Mohar SinghReferred¶22
Rajasthan SRTC and others v. Mohar Singh, AIR 2008 SC 2553 · Who else cites this
Sukhi Ram v. State of HaryanaReferred¶22
Sukhi Ram v. State of Haryana, 1982 PLR 717
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another v. Bal Mukund BairwaRelied on¶23
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another v. Bal Mukund Bairwa (2), (2009)4 Supreme Court Cases 299
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Oriental Bank of Commerce and others
Rajiv Gupta
HEMANT GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
