C.W.P No. 7785 of 1990 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 7785 of 1990 Date of decision : November 29, 2010 The Sirsa Central Co-op Bank Ltd., Sirsa ...... Petitioner v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak and another ...... Respondents. *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. C.R.Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Goyat, Advocate for Mr. J.S.Duhan, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) In this writ petition, filed by the employer-The Sirsa Central Coperative Bank Ltd, Sirsa, the only issue raised was with regard to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court since respondent No.2-workman had earlier filed a civil suit with respect to the same dispute which had been dismissed. In the written statement, respondent No.2 has quoted issue No.6 and findings thereon which are to the following effect :- C.W.P No. 7785 of 1990 ::2:: “ Issue No.6- Whether Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the present suit. Findings :- In the present case, the Sirsa Central Cooperative Bank is engaged in a business and the plaintiff is engaged in industrial occupation or avocation. The present dispute is thus clearly an industrial dispute. There is no manner of doubt that the work done by the defendant Bank has all attributes of the business, the work done by the employees under the bank is a business in a commercial sense. For all practical purposes the defendant bank is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act. The matter is, therefore, triable by Industrial Tribunal and Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit under the provision of Industrial Dispute Act. This issue is, therefore, decided against the plaintiff.” No replication was filed. On the strength of the above findings, counsel for respondent No.2 has stated that this was not a case where respondent No.2 was forum- hoping but a case where he went to the Labour Court after the Civil Court refused to intercede in the matter on account of jurisdiction. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that the learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction. Consequently, finding no merit in this writ petition, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 29, 2010. JUDGE `kk'