Holding

Civil courts have no jurisdiction to entertain suits for enforcement of contracts of personal service; such matters must be decided by the appropriate labour court or industrial tribunal.

Summary

The plaintiff, an employee of Apollo Tyres Ltd., filed a civil suit seeking declaration that he remained a workman, challenging his transfer, restraining the employer from forcing a promotion, and protecting his trade‑union activities. The employer contended that the civil court lacked jurisdiction over matters relating to a contract of personal service. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate authority and the Kerala High Court reversed, holding the civil court had jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that under Section 14(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a contract of personal service cannot be enforced in a civil suit and that such employment disputes must be adjudicated by a labour court or industrial tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, citing Pearlite Lioners (P) Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court and appellate orders and restored the trial court’s dismissal. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for enforcement of a contract of personal service arising out of an employment relationship.
Whether reliefs sought by the employee fall within the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thus must be decided by a labour court or industrial tribunal.
Applicability of Section 14(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 to bar civil suits for personal service contracts.

Legislation cited

Subjects

jurisdictioncivil courtlabour courtindustrial tribunalcontract of personal serviceSpecific Relief ActIndustrial Disputes Actemployment disputetransfertrade union

Judgment

[2009] 7 S.C.R 336

A APOLLO TYRES LTD.
v
C.P. SABASTIAN
Civil Appeal No. 7007 of 2003
APRIL 30, 2009
B
(MARKANDEY KATJU AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.)

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 : ,. .
Power of Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal vis-a-vis Civil
c Court - Contract for personal service includes all matters
relating to service of the employee like confirmation,
suspension, transfer, termination etc. - Civil Court has no
iurisdiction in such matters - Civil Court - Jurisdiction.
Pearlite Lioners (P) Ltd. vs. Manorama Sirsi 2004 (3) SCC r.
D 172 - relied on.
)-
..
Case Law Reference
2004(3) sec 112 relied on para 13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No(s).
E
7007 of 2003
From the Judgement and Order dated 06.09.2002 of the
Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in CMA No. 114 of ~~

2001
F WITH
Civil Appeal No. 7008 of 2003
P. S. Patwalia, Romy Chacko, Saji Varghese, Ramesh
Singh, Ankur Saigal, Bina Gupta, Gaurav Singh, with him for
G theAppellant(s).
A.
E.M.S. Anam, for the Respondent(s).
The following order of the Court was delivered

H 336
.....
APPOLO TYRES LTD. V. C.P. SABASTIAN 337

1. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned A
1
judgment of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 06 h
September, 2002 passed in CMA No.14 of 2001 whereby the
High Court while confirming the judgment and decree of the court
below has held that the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain
the matter. B
2. The reaspondent-plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as the
'plaintiff' was an employee of the appellant-defendant,
hereinafter referred to as the 'defendant' which is a private
company and not State under Article 12 of the Constitution.
3. Facts giving rise to this appeal are:
c
The plaintiff filed a suit being OS No. 2098 of 1999 before
the Munsiff's Court, lrinjalakuda, DistrictThrissur, Kerala seeking
the following reliefs:
•' "A. Declaring that plaintiff is still a workman (Radial Tyre
D
Builder)· and continues to be a workman under the
defendant entitled for wages and all other consequential
benefits of service from the defendant.
8. Declaring that the order of transfer (Ref.WKS/PSL E
dated 08-10-1999) issued by the defendant transferring
plaintiff to West Bengal is intended to victimize, made
with malafie intentions, irregular and illegal.
C. Restraining defendant and its officers from compelling
plaintiff by any modes to accept any promoted post which F
he is not willing to hold.
D. Restraining the defendant, its officers and men from
any way interfering with plaintiffs right to perform legitimate
trade union activities as the General Secretary of the union G
Apollo Tyres Workers Movement.
E. Granting the cost of suit from the defendant and
allowing plaintiff to realize the same from the defendant
and its assets."
H
338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.

A 4. Defendant filed a written statement in the suit as well as
I.A. No. 1707 of 2000 stating that the Civil Court has no
jurisdiction in the matter.
1
5. The trial Court by its order dated 05 h day of October,
2000 allowed the said application and dismissed the suit filed
8 by the plaintiff.

6. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the trial Court,
plaintiff filed an appeal before the first appellate authority.
1
7. The first appellate authority by its order dated 25 h
C January, 2001 reversed the judgment and decree of the trial
Court and held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain
the dispute. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the trial

-
Court for a fresh disposal.
D 8. Aggrieved against the order of the first appellate ~

authority, the defendant filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.
14 of 2001 in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.
9. The High Court, by the impugned order, has confirmed
the order of the first appellate authority and held that the civil
E Court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter. It was also directed
that the suit shall be disposed of within three months.
10. Aggrieved against the impugned order, the defendant
is before us.
F 11. Heard learned counsel forthe parties and perused the
record.
12. On the facts of the case, we are clearly of the view that
the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by Section 14(b) of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 which states that a contract of personal
G service cannot be enforced in a civil suit. In our opinion, if the
plaintiff had any grievance and if he is a workman as defined in
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he should have raised an
industrial dispute and sought relief under the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 before the labour Court or industrial Tribunal. There
H are many powers which the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal
APPOLO TYRES LTD. V. C.P. SABASTIAN 339

~ enjoy which the Civil Court does not enjoy e.g. the power to A
enforce contracts of personal service, to create contracts, to
.,. change contracts etc. These things can only be done by the
Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal but cannot be done by a civil
Court. A contract for personal service includes all matters relating
to the service of the employee e.g. confirmation, suspension, B
transfer, termination etc.
13. In our opinion, the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff were
clearly seeking enforcement of a contract of personal service
and the civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant such reliefs as
held by this Court in the case of Pearlite Lioners (P) Ltd. vs. c
Manorama Sirsi (2004) 3 SCC 172. The High Court and the
first appellate Court were clearly in error in holding that the civil
court had jurisdiction in the matter and the trial Court was right
in holding that the civil court had no jurisdiction and rightly
dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. D
~
14. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, the impugned
judgment of the High Court and the first appellate Court are set
aside and that of the trial Court is restored. No order as to costs.
Civil Ai:.meal No.7008 of 2003 E
15. Following the judgment in Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs.
Sebastian which is the subject matter of Civil Appeal No.7007
.,.. of 2003, the High Court has allowed the revision filed by the
plaintiff holding that the suit is maintainable.
F
16. Since, we have accepted the appeal filed against the
relied on judgment, this appeal is also allowed and the
imnpugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of
the lower Court is restored. No order as to costs.

... ,,._)If
G.N. Appeal allowed.