Holding

The suit is maintainable in a civil court to the extent of a wrongful dismissal claim and compensation, but specific performance of the service contract is not permissible.

Summary

Sitaram Kashiram Konda, a former employee of Pigment Cakes & Chemicals Mfg. Co., filed a suit seeking declaration of illegal dismissal, reinstatement, and compensation. The trial court held the matter was an industrial dispute beyond civil jurisdiction; the First Appellate Court reversed, deeming it civil. The Bombay High Court again held it an industrial dispute and barred damages. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that while specific performance of the service contract cannot be granted, the civil court may entertain the wrongful dismissal claim and award compensation. Consequently, the lower judgments were set aside and the case remitted to the trial court for disposal.

Issues considered

Whether the dispute raised by the appellant constitutes an industrial dispute cognizable only by an industrial court.
Whether a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a claim for wrongful dismissal and award compensation.
Whether specific performance of a contract of service can be granted by a civil court.

Subjects

industrial disputecivil jurisdictionwrongful dismissalreinstatementcompensationspecific performancelabor lawindustrial relations

Judgment

125

SITARAM KASHIRAM KONDA A
' v.
PIGMENT CAKES & CHEMICALS MFG. CO.
July 27, 1979
[N. L. UNTWALIA AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] B

• ,,,. Tennina1ion of 5t"FVicc-Declaratory suit to set aside the tc1111i11atio11 and for
a1rarding con1pe11sation--Disputc whether of a ciril nature cogni;:;ab!c by a
civil court.

The appellant fikd a suit against his employer, the re.spcnde.ut, for a :leciara-
tion that lie had b{·cn removed from service illegally and \'i'ithout any reason C
and that he should be reinstated in his former job with due benefits an<l
advantages. He also claimed compensation. The trial court held that the
dispute raised by the appe1lant was in the nature of an industrial dispute and
that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the san1e. The First Appellate
Court allowed the ;:ippt:ai and held that the dispute raised ·\'\'as of a· civil nature
and the case was cognizable by a civil court. In the respondent's second
appeal, the I-ligh Court agreed with the1 vie'v of the trial court and held that D
the appella·nt bad not claimed damages by pleading wrongful disn1issal and
breach of the contract cf his service, and that the facts pleaded in the plaint
sho\ved that the dispute \Vas an industrial dispute cognizable only by an industrial
court and not bf a ch:il court.

In the further appeal to this Court the point for consideration was whether
' . _.,,.- un the facts pleaded by the appellant the dispute \Vas an industrial dispute E
cognizable cnly by an industrial court and not by a civil court.

Allowing the appral,

HELD :(1) It is not quite correct to say that the ~nit as ftlc<l by the
<:.·ppellant is not nlainiainablc at all in a civil court. The 111ain rdicf.s asked
for by the appellant which when granted will aniount to 5pecific perfonnan(;c
F
of the contract of service and, therefore, they cannot be granted. But the
appellant in the alternative has also claimed for awarding compensation to
him. [127A-C]
?)
(2) Reading the plaint as a whole, it can legitimately be culled out that
the appellar.t had made out a case that he was wrongfuliy disn1issed from
service. This relief could be granted by the civil court if it found that the
', plaintiff's ca<>e was true. The High Court was not right in saying that no
G
such case had at ;-fll been made in the plaint. To this limited extent the n1attcr
could be examined by the civil court. [127D-E]

Dr. S. B. Dutt v. University of Delhi, [1959] SCR 1236; S. R. Tewari v. Distt.
Boa.'"d J4gra & .Anr., rJ964] 3 SCR 55; Indian Airline\-; Corp. v. Sukluleo Rui,
[1971] Suppl. SCR 510, Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram
Wadke of Bombay & Ors., [1976] I SCR 427; referred to.
R

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1969.
126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ l ?80] l S.C.R.

A From the Judgment and Order dated 20th June, 1968 of !lie
Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 48/66.
K. Jayaram, Amicus Curiae for the Appellant.
Y. S. Chiialey, M. V. Goswami and Ambrish Kumar for the Res-
pondent.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UNTWALIA, J. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit in the Trial Court
in the year 1963 alleging certain unjustifiable aud illegal actions on
the part of his employer,. the respondent in this appeal. The reliefs
claimed in the suit weJCe the following : -
c "(a) That it may be declared that the defendant haa re-
moved the plaintiff from service illegally and without
any reason.
(b) That it may be declared that the defendairt failed aud
neglected to re-employ th;: plaintiff although the
D defendant restarted the factory.
( c) That the defendant be ordered to reinstate the plain-
tiff to his former job with due benefits and advan-
tages.
( d) In the alternative the defondant may be ordered to
E pay to the plaintiff such compensation as to the
Hoh'ble Court may deem fit.
( e) For costs of the suit.
(f) For such further and other reliefs as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit."
F
On contest by the respondent, the Trial Court held that the dispute
raised by the appellant was in the nature of au industrial dispute and
hence the Civil Court had to jurisdiction to try it. The appellant
took the matter in appeal before the First Appellate Court. It allowed
th·;: appeal and held that the dispute raised was of a civil nature and
G the case was cognizable by a Civil Court. The respondent filed the serond
appeal in the High Court and the High Court has agreed with the
'
•
view of the Trial Court. It has said that th;: appellant had not
claimetl damages by pleading wrongful dismissal and breach of tk
contract of his service. The facts pleaded by him all converged to
show that the dispute was an industrial dispute cognizable only by
H an industrial court and not by a Civil Court. The appellant has
prese'Jtted his appeal ih this Court by a certificate granted by the High
Court.
s. K. KONDA v. PIGMENT CAKES & CHEMICALS (Untwalia, J.) 127

The Court is obliged to Mr. K. Jayaram for assisting it as Amicus A
Curiae in this case. Afb~r having appreciated the entire facts and the
circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it is not quite
> correct to say that the suit filed by the appellant is not maintainable at
J
all in a Civil Court. The correct position of law is that the main
reliefs asked for by him which when granted will amount to specific
B
performance of the contract of service and therefore they cannot b~
granted. There are a number of decisions of this Court to that effect;
to wit-Dr. S. B. Dutt v. University of Delhi('), S. R. Tiwari v.
District Board Agra & Anr.( 2 ) and Indian Airlines Corporation v.
Suhhdeo Rai.( 3 ) Refereuce was also be made in this connection to
the decision of this Court in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar c
Shantaram Wadke of Bombay and Ors.(')

But then rn the alternative, the appellant had also prayed for
awarding compensation to him. ~nd reading the plaint as a whole,
if can legitimately be culled out that he had made out a case,
whether it was right on fact or not, that is a different question, that
D
he was wrongfully dismissed from service. This relief could be gran-
ted by the Civil Court if it found that the plaintiff's case was true.
The High Court, in our opinion, is not right in saying that no such case
had at all been made out in the plaint. In our opinion, as we have
earlier said, re-ading the plaint as a whole, such case can be spelt out.
TI1at being so to this limited extent, the matter could be examined by E
the Civil Court.
We accordingly allow the appeal set aside the judgments of the
courts below and send back the case to the Trial Court for disposing
it of in accordance with law in the light of this judgment. There will
be no order as to costs. Since the suit bas become very old, the Trial F
Court is directed to dispose it of as expeditiously as possible.

N.V.K. Appeal allowed.

',

' - (1) [1959J s.c.R. 1236
(2) [1964] 3 S.C.R. 55
(3) [1971] Suppl. S.C.R. 510
(4J r 1976] l s.c.R. 427