Civil Appeal No 5 of 1969
126 From the Judgment and Order dated 20th June 1968 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No 4866
K Jayaram Amicus Curiae for the Appellant
Y section Chitaley M V Goswami and Ambrish Kumar for the Respondent
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 and illegal actions on the part of his employer the respondent in this appeal
The reliefs claimed in the suit were the following a That it may be declared that the defendant has removed the plaintiff from service illegally and without any reason
b That it may be declared that the defendant failed and neglected to re employ the plaintiff although the defendant restarted the factory
c That the defendant be ordered to reinstate the plaintiff to his former job with due benefits and advantages
d In the alternative the defendant may be ordered to pay to the plaintiff such compensation as to the Hon 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
 On contest by the respondent the Trial Court held that the dispute raised by the appellant was in the nature of an 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 the appeal and held that the dispute raised was of a civil nature and the case was cognizable by a Civil Court
The respondent filed the second appeal in the High Court and the High Court has agreed with the view of the Trial Court
It has said that the appellant had not claimed damages by pleading wrongful dismissal and breach of the contract of his service
The facts pleaded by him all converged to show that the dispute was an industrial dispute cognizable only by an industrial court and not by a Civil Court
The appellant has presented his appeal in this Court by a certificate granted by the High Court
127 The Court is obliged to Mr K Jayaram for assisting it as Amicus Curiae in this case
After 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 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 performance of the contract of service and therefore they cannot be granted
There are a number of decisions of this Court to that effect to wit Dr section B Dutt vs University of Delhi1 section R Tiwari vs District Board Agra  Anr2 and Indian Airlines Corporation vs Sukhdeo Rai3 Reference was also be made in this connection to the decision of this Court in Premier Automobiles Ltd vs Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay and Ors4 But then in the alternative the appellant had also prayed for awarding compensation to him
And reading the plaint as a whole it 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 he was wrongfully dismissed from service
This relief could be granted 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 reading the plaint as a whole such case can be spelt out
That being so to this limited extent the matter could be examined by 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 has become very old the Trial Court is directed to dispose it of as expeditiously as possible
NVK Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellant filed a suit against his employer the respondent for a declaration that he had been removed from service illegally and without any reason and that he should be reinstated in his former job with due benefits and advantages
He also claimed compensation
The trial court held that the dispute raised by the appellant was in the nature of an industrial dispute and that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the same
The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and held that the dispute raised was of a civil nature and the case was cognizable by a civil court
In the respondent s second appeal the High Court agreed with the view of the trial court and held that the appellant had not claimed damages by pleading wrongful dismissal and breach of the contract of his service and that the facts pleaded in the plaint showed that the dispute was an industrial dispute cognizable only by an industrial court and not by a civil court
In the further appeal to this Court the point for consideration was whether on the facts pleaded by the appellant the dispute was an industrial dispute cognizable only by an industrial court and not by a civil court
Allowing the appeal  HELD1 It is not quite correct to say that the suit as filed by the appellant is not maintainable at all in a civil court
The main reliefs asked for by the appellant which when granted will amount to specific performance 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 appellant had made out a case that he was wrongfully dismissed from service
This relief could be granted by the civil court if it found that the plaintiff s case was true
The High Court was not right in saying that no such case had at all been made in the plaint
To this limited extent the matter could be examined by the civil court
127D E Dr section B Dutt vs University of Delhi   section R Tewari vs Distt
Board Agra  Anr   Indian Airlines Corp vs Sukhdeo Rai  Premier Automobiles Ltd vs Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay  Ors   referred to