Allowed

T. Raghunath Singh v. Sri Mandha Raghunath Reddy

Telangana HC3 Dec 2021CRP/475/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Holding that suits by employees for mandatory injunctions regarding their services under the Telangana Shops and Establishment Act are barred by law. The High Court allowed the statutory revision, set aside the trial court's order, and rejected the plaint.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order in IA No.420 of 2019 in OS No.1756 of 2019 is set aside, and the plaintiffs' suit is rejected.

T. Raghunath Singh Vs Sri Mandha Raghunath Reddy — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 475 0F 2020

¶8

Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, preferred to the High Court against the Order dated 1911112019 in lA No.420 of 2019 in OS No.1756 of 2019 on the file of XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

T.Raghunath Singh, S/o.late T.Tularam Singh

¶11

..,PETITIONERY2NO DEFENDANT

¶12

AND

¶13

Sri Mandha Raghunath Reddy, S/o Pulla Reddy,

¶14

Sri D. Parvathalu, S/o Narsimlu,

¶15

Smt. Kanchamma, W/o D. Parvathalu,

¶16

...RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶18

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be'pleased to grant stay of all the proceedings in OS No.1 756 of 2019 on the file of the XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶19

For the Petitioner : SRI T.V.KALYAN SINGH, Advocate

¶20

For the Respondents :

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HON'B ,E SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWAI{/\ REDDY

¶23

CRP No.475 of 2020

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The petiti,,ner/2"d defendant has fited this Civil Revision petition under Article 22r of the constitution of India assailing the order dated 19.11.2019 in IA No.420 of 2019 in OS No.1756 of 2019 pending on the file of the XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courrs ar Hyderabad, dismissing the a rplication filed under Order-VII, Rule-l l(d) read with Section 1 5 I of C.^,.C. to reject the plaint.

¶26

For the sal e of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiffs and defendants as arrr yed in the original suit.

¶27

The origin rl suit No.l756 ol 2019 is filed by rhe plaintillb againsr the petitioner he ein/2'd defendant and other defendants lor mandatory injunction dircctir g the del'endants to rcstrain rhemse lves fiorn interlering into the peaceh t services with M/s. Kshatriya Rajput I.rust Board (hereinafter refer ed to as 'Trust Board,) situated at 2-3-3j, Maharana Pratap Road No.6 Amberpet, Hyderabad. The plaintiffs in OS No.l756 of 2019 are the er rployees of Trust Board. They were appointed on 0l.11.2011 by th r Secretary of the Trust Board by issuing appointment letters. The first rlaintiff was appointed as Supervisor and the plaintiffs 2 & 3 were appoinr:d as Sweeper and Attender in the said Tnrst Board, as there is a functior hall being maintained by the Trust Board. The plaintiffs have been discha'ging their duties. The defendants wirhout any right or interest compelle, I the plaintifti to leave their services an<l in fact on 22.07.2019 the de'endants jointly and collectively abused the plaintiff's and

¶28

¶29

threatened^{to leave the services of the Trust Board' The plaintiffshave also} approached^{the local police' but the local police have expressedtheir} inability^{to take any action againstthe defendants'accordingly'sought for a} mandatory^{injunctionagainstthe defendants in the original suit'}

¶30

The 2nd^{defendantimmediately after receipt of the suitsummons'} filed IA^{No.420 of 2019 under Order VII' Rule 1l (d) r/w Sec'151of} C.P.C. to^{reject the plaint filed by the plaintiffsstating that the suit is hit by} the^{provisionsof Section 65 of the TelanganaShops and EstablishmentAct'} lggg and^{the civir courtceases to hord jurisdiction to entertainthe suit.} The original^{suit is filed misrepresenting the facts' The suit is also badfor} mis-joinder^of ProPer^{Parties'as the defendantshavefailed to makethe} Trust Board^{as party to the original suit' wherein the l't defendant is the} Chairman^{and the 2nd defendant is the Secretaryand 3'd defendant is the} ffustee^{of the Trust Board' The plaint is silent about their capacity; The} Trust Board^{is a registeredone and it is formed for welfareof the Kshatriya} Rajput^{community beingmaintainedby nine trusteesbelongingto the said} community;^{The Secretary and trvo others of the Trust Board were removed} on 23.11.2018^{andout of the said threeTrustees' Sri B' Mohan Singh is a} private^{Secretaryand after his removal from the Trust Board' the} petitioneri2'd^{defendanthas beenmade a Secretary to look after day-to-day} alfairs^{of the Trust Boardiln spiteof lawful removal' Sri B MohanSingh} and two^{others are trying to interfere with the aflairsof Trust Board'The} Trust^{Boardhasalso fileda suit in OSNo'407of 2019 on the file of the} leamed^{III Additional Chief Judge, City CivilCourts, Hyderabad, wherein} temporary^{injunctionwas granted'vide order dated 27 '06 '2019 in IA}

vu --/l l'

No.756 ol 2019. Ihereafter, the^{plaintif'fsin the presentsuit flleda false} suit with all false r [egations^and the^{suit is bad in law'}

¶35

The learne I XXI Junior Civil Judge^{after consideringthe rival} contentions held trat the^{plaint cannot be rejected,as the plaintdiscloses} sufficient cause cf action.^{Againstthe said orders,the presentCRP is} directed on the fol lowing^grounds:

¶36

i) The Court b,^:low has failed^{to considerthat the suit filed by the} respondents plaintiffs is barred u/s.65 of^{the TelanganaShops} and Establir hment Act, 1988, as^{suchthe trial court ceasesto} hold^jurisdit tion to entertain the^{suit. 'l'he respondents/plaintifTs} are only w rrkers appointed by the^{Trust Board and covered} under Secti, n 65 of the Telangana^{Shops andEstablishment Act,} r 988.

¶37

ii) The Court relow has failed to consider^{that if the respondents/} plaintiffs vr:re the employees of Trust Board,^{they shouldonly} approach 11e competent authority^{under the provisions of} Telangana ihops and Establishment^{Act,1988 andthey cannot} file a suit ir the civil Court.

¶38

iii) The Coun below has also failed^{to considerthat the order in IA} No.756 of 1019 in OS No.407^{of 2019restraining the defendants} from interl iring with the^{possessionol the suit schedule property} is in force and the suit^is bad^{in law lor not making the Trust} Board as p rrty.

¶39

¶40

¶41

On a studied examination of the^plaint averments,^{the plaintiffsin} OS No.l756 of 2019 are the only employees of^{Trust Board. The} contention ofthe^{petitioner/2nd} defendant,^{who is the Secretaryofthe Trust} Board, is that the matter squarely falls^within the ambit^{of Section 65 of the} Telangana Shops and Establishment Act, 1988 and the^{Civil Court has no} jurisdiction. It is for the Labour Court to consider the request of the respondents/plaintiffs, that apart, vide order dated 2'7.06.2019^{in IA No.756} of 2019 in OS No.407 of 201, the^learned III^{AdditionalChiel Judge,} Hyderabad granted temporary injunction^{against the trusteesand the said} order has attained finality^and no^{appealis filed against the said orders.}

¶42

Notice was served on the respondents.^{Theyremainedabsent} without any representation. Heard leamed counsel^{for the revision} petitioner/2nd defendant.

¶43

The learned counsel for the revision^{petitioner/2nd defendantseeksto} submit that the^{plaintiffs in the original suit being the employees of the} defendant if they aggrieved, they are^{at libertyto approachthe appropriate} forum u/s.65 of the Telangana^{Shopsand Establishment Act,1988 andthe} civil Court is precluded from interfering^{in such contract of services.The} Court below has failed to observe^{thisaspect anddismissed the application} under Order-VII. Rule-l I CPC^and the suit^{cannot be continued.In support} of his contentions, the learned counsel^{lor the revisionpetitioner relied on} the following decisions:

¶44

i) Karnataka Bank^{v. T.} Gopalakrishna^Raot iD Peartite Liners^(P) Ltd.^v. Manorama^Sirsi2;

¶45

1 1993 scc online 2?3

i ii) Th Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlckar Shontarom

¶50

l4/o lke of Bombay ond others3; and iv) RaJ $than State Road Transport Corporarion and another v. I al Mukund Bairwa (2)a,

¶51

i) ln Karn aka Bank,s case (l.t supra), while relying upon Jitundra Nath Biswas v. Iv /s, Empire of India & Ceytone Tea Co,, & another5. il was held in para-15 a: under:

¶52

"Therefore, in the cases not covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, or by anthe. statute and the employment is a private employment, remedy of t re employee will be to sue for damages in the cases of an illegal te'rnination of service; he cannot insist befbre the Civil Court that h: should be continued in service: he cannot recourse to an action t( reskain the employer from proceeding in a maru.:er that may l:ad to the termination of service. Civil Court,s jurisdiction to grant such a relief is barred by necessary implication.

¶53

ii) In I zarlite Liners (p) Zrd,,s case (2nd supra), the Hon,ble Supreme Courr at rara_I0 while dealing with the scope of Order-VII, Rule 11 (d) of CpC hek that if the suit is barred by law, it should be thrown out at the threshold ar d it should not be allowed to continue and go for trial. None of the reliefs sought in the plaint can be granted to the plaintiff under the law and the qr estion then arises as to whether such a suit shourd be allowed to continu: and go for trial. Then it was held that such a suit should be thro.vn rur at rhe threshold and the trial Court r.r as right in relecting thc plaint.

¶54

2 lzoo+.y : scc I zz '(¹⁹⁷⁶⁾ I scc 496 o izooll + scc zee s atn tqgo sc zss

¶55

¶56

iii) In The Premiet Automobiles Ltd.'s case (3'd supra), while dealing with the scope of Section 9 of C.P.C., the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Civil Court's jurisdiction is ousted where the statute creates certain rights and liabilities and also provides a particular remedy for enforcement and held that Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate upon an industrial dispute if it is concemed with the enforcement of certain right or liability created only under the Act. In that event civil Cou( will have no jurisdiction even to grant a decree of injunction to prevent the threatened injury on account of the alleged breach of contract if the contract is one which is recognised by and enforceable under the Act alone.

¶57

iv) In Rajasthan Stote Roatl Transport Corporation's case (4th supra), while dealing with the scope of 9 of C.P.C., the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at para-38, which reads as under:

¶58

"Where the relationship between the parties as employer and employee is contractual, the right to enforce the conuact of service depending on personal volition of an employer is prohibited in terms of Section 14 (l)(b) of the Specific Reiief Act, 1963. It has, however, four exceptions, namely (1) when an employee enjoys a status i.e. his conditions of service are govemed by the rules framed under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India or a statute and would otherwise be govemed by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India; (2) where the conditions of service are governed by statute or statutory regulation and in the event mandatory provisions thereof have been breached; (3) when the service of the employee is otherwise protected by a statutel and (4) where a right is claimed under the Industrial Disputes Act or sister laws, termination ol service having been effected in breach ofthe provisions thereof."

In the pr:sent case also, the plaintiffs have filed the original suit No'1756 of 201 | against the petitioner herein/2od defendant and two other defendants stati rg that the defendants are trying to interfere with their peaceful emplol ment. It is the case of the defendants that they are part of Trust Board and in fact, the Trust Board has employed the plaintiffs; suit is bad fbr mis-joi rder ol proper panies and that the suit is hit by the provisions ol Se:tion 65 of the Act: rhe Civil Courl.s jurisdiction u/s.9 of C.P.C. is ousted and despite service of notice, the respondents remained absent. The app ication under Order VIl, Rule l l (<i) of CpC tiled before the Court below was dismissed with an observation that the ftrcts relied upon by the peti ioner to reject the plaint are mostly triable issues and that there is a cause rf action to file the suit and,the plaint cannot be rejected based on the tria lle issues at this stage and they ought to have decided on the tull-fledged t ial.

¶63

Order-MI Rule-Il of CpC deals with the rejection of plaint. Rule-l1 (d) contr mplates that where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be b rrred by any law, it is one of the grounds for rejection of the plaints. Rule -ll prescribes certain situations in which the court shall reject the plaint. lejection of plaint does mean the disposal ol'the suit. Ifa suit is dismissec, a fresh suit rvill be baned by the principles of res judicata; wherea , in the case ol' rejection of a plaint, a lresh suit is maintainable and the previous order ol rejection of plaint ra.ill not be an impediment in fi)ing the second suit for removal of the defect which was cause of rejection of the praint. order VII Rure 1 l (d) of cpc authorizes a Court to reject a l,laint where the suit appears from the statements made in '² the plaint to be ba red by any law.

¶64

-l-_4

¶65

¶66

Thus, to invoke^{theiurisdictionunder Order-Vll, Rule ll (d) ofCPC} the court must restrict^{its scrutinyonly to the averments made in the plaint} and at that stage, it^{cannot take into considerationthe defence 0f the} defendant nor can it seek^{assistance ol any evidence lrom the parties' In} other words, at the time of^{invokingjurisdiction under Order-VII,Rule l1} (d) of CPC, the Court shall presume that^{all the statementsmade in the} plaint to be true and even if on that^{basis, it appearsthat the suit is baned} by any law for the^{time being in force,the plaint shall be rejected' The} provision is mandatory^{and no discretion is left withthe Coud'}

¶67

Reverting back to the^{facts of the case, the plaintiffshave filed the} original suit alleging that^{they were employedby the Trust Boardas} Supervisor, Sweeper and^{Attenderrespectively. This kind of employment} squarely fatls^{withinthe provisions ol Seclion 65 ol the the Telangana} Shops and Establishment^{Act' 1988'as their duty as admittedly to look after} -f rust Board' the cleanliness^{andsupervise the function hall of}

¶68

The Hon'ble Supreme^{Courtin the decisions discussedabovehas} clearly laid down^{that at best the employees can seek relief of damagesfor} breach of contract^{and they cannot insist the civil courtto direct the} defendants to continue^{theminto theirservices and the jurisdictionof the} Civil Court is barred^{by necessary implication.The Court belowhas} observed that the^{plea raised by the petitioner/2nddefendantis a triable} issue, but when once^{the suit is baned underspecificenactmentand the} civil Court cannot^{grant any remedytaking awaythe pre-conclusionof the} trial, the Hon'ble Supreme^{Court in PearliteLiners (P) Ltd. (2nd supra).} clearly held that such^{suit is to be thrown out at the threshold and the trial}

r:l

court need not ;onduct full length trial for dismissal or rejection of the suit. In such circun rstances, where the relationship between the parties as employer and rmployee is contractual, the right to interfere rvith the contract ofservr :e depending on personal volition of employer is prohibited in terms of Sect, rn l4 (lXb) olthe Specific Relief Acr. 1963,

¶73

Accordin 1ly, vieu,ed fiont an1, angle, the suit has Io be rejected at the threshold, rs it is barred u/s.65 ol the l.elangana Shops and Establishment A :t, 198g. There is a jurisdictional error commilted by the Court below and instead of considering the application, rejecting the suit at the threshold dis nissed the application filed under Order VII, Rule I I (d) of C.P.C. and the order impugned is not tenable.

¶74

In the resr Jt, the Civil Revision petition is allowed. Consequently, the order impugn :d in IA No.420 of 2019 in OS No. I 756 of 2019 is hereby set aside. The srit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs in OS No.1756 of 2019 is rejected. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶75

I6 Miscellane.lus applications, il any pending in this revision petition shall stand closed

¶76

Sd/.K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII ('-lfi

¶77

SECTION OFFICER

¶78

To 1. The XXI Junior C vil Judge, City Civil Cou(, Hvderabad. 2. One CC to Sri T.^r.Kalyan Singh, Advocate tO'pUCt 3. Two CD Copies 4. One Spare Copy Kj.

HIGH COURT

DATEO:0311212021

ORDER

CRP.No.475 of 2020

1.]>"
:t9
,n