Supreme Court of India

R.S.R.T.C. AND ORS.versusRAMDHARA INDOLIYA

Citation: 2006 INSC 417
Decided: 11 July 2006
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: AR LAKSHMANAN

Holding

Civil courts have no jurisdiction to entertain suits for reinstatement of a workman where the dispute is governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; such matters must be referred to the appropriate industrial tribunal.

Summary

The respondent, Ramdhara Indoliya, was employed as a daily‑wage conductor by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) and was terminated. He filed a suit in a civil court seeking reinstatement, back wages and other relief. The civil court and the High Court ruled in his favour, but RSRTC appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that, as a workman, the dispute falls within the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore civil courts lack jurisdiction to entertain such suits; the appropriate remedy is reference to an industrial tribunal. Consequently, the decree of the civil court was declared void, the respondent was not entitled to reinstatement or back wages, and any amount already paid could not be recovered. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower courts' orders.

Issues considered

Whether a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for reinstatement of a workman whose dispute is covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether the decree passed by the civil court is void for lack of jurisdiction.
Whether the respondent is entitled to back wages or reinstatement in the absence of a proper industrial dispute proceeding.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 9
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 2-A, s. 2(k)

Subjects

Industrial disputeCivil court jurisdictionWorkmanIndustrial Disputes ActReinstatementBack wagesPecuniary jurisdiction

Judgment

A                              R.S.R.T.C. AND ORS.
                                         v.
                              RAMDHARA INDOLIY A

                                    JULY 11, 2006

B       [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]


          Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 2(k) and 2-A-Termination of
    sen1ice-Suit for reinstatement-Jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain-
C   Held: Daily wager being workman and dispute being an industrial dispute,
    Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit---Code of Civil Procedure,
    1908-Section 9.

         The qu~stion which arose for consideration in this appeal was whether
    the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit for reinstatement of a
D   workman.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court

           HELD: Respondent-daily wager failed to approach the Industrial Court,
    but approached the Civil Court. High Court has committed a grave error in
E   not considering the fact that the respondent being workman and a dispute
    being an industrial dispute, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to 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 i; without
    jurisdiction. Therefore, 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
F   wages. However, if he has already been paid some amount, the same amount
    may not be recovered from him. [449-C-E; 450-C-D)

          Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. and Ors. v. Zakir Hussain,
    [20051 7 sec 447, relied on.

G         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4670 of2006.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 3.9.2002 of the High Court of
    Rajasthan, .Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 13811997.

                                          448
H
               R.S.RTC. v. RA MD HARA INDOLIYA [LAKSHMANAN,J.]           449
      Sushi! Kumar Jain, H.D. Thanvi and Sarad Singhania for the Appellants.    A
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Although respondent is served, nobody
appears for the respondent.
                                                                                B
     This 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. 138of1997.

       We have heard Mr. S.K. Jain learned counsel for the appellants. The
respondent was appointed as a Conductor on daily wages by the Corporation. C
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 substance right to hold the post, however, has committed
serious error in dismissing the second appeal filed by the Corporation and
affriming the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court and also D
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. E
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.

      The case on hand in covered by a very recent decision of this Court F
reported in [2005] 7 SCC 44 7 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 G
Civil Court and obatined a decree, which was affirmed by the Appellate Court
and also by the High Court, against which Civil Appeal No. 5176 of2005 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
Industiral Disputes Act and not by way of suit. This Court also held that the H
    450                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A workman in that case was also not entitled to the protection under Article
    311 (2) of the Constitution of India. This 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 mannner, the performance cannot be enforced
B   in any other manner. The respondent in that case has failed to approach the
    remedies provided under the Industiral Disputes Act.

           In the 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
C   facts and circumstances of the case had no jurisdiction to entertain and try
    the suit. Therefore, 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
D   from him. We make it clear that tlie 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.

             The Appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no orders as to
    costs.
E
    N.J.                                                          Appeal allowed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Industrial dispute"Sign in to search