Civil Revision No. 1637 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1637 of 2009 Date of Decision: 6.7.2009 Oriental Bank of Commerce and others ......Petitioners Versus Rajiv Gupta .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Present: Shri R.N.Lohan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri S.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The defendants are in revision aggrieved against the order dated 14.2.2009 passed by the learned trial Court, holding that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit challenging the order of dismissal of the plaintiff. An order of termination of the services of the plaintiff was passed on 28.2.2006 on account of conviction of the plaintiff by the Special Judge, Patiala. In the said suit, a preliminary objection was raised by the petitioners that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction as the remedy of the plaintiff is only before the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said preliminary objection has been answered against the defendant-petitioners and, therefore, the defendants are in revision aggrieved against the said order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Jitendra Nath Civil Revision No. 1637 of 2009 (2) Biswas v. M/s Empire of India and Ceylone Tea Co. and another, AIR 1990 SC 255; State of Haryana and others v. Bikar Singh, AIR 2006 SC 2473 and Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam and others v. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad and another, AIR 2002 Supreme Court 997, to contend that the jurisdiction to entertain the suit challenging the order of dismissal is only before the Industrial Tribunal. However, on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Rajasthan SRTC and others v. Mohar Singh, AIR 2008 SC 2553 and a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Sukhi Ram v. State of Haryana, 1982 PLR 717. Recently in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another v. Bal Mukund Bairwa (2), (2009)4 Supreme Court Cases 299, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while reviewing the entire case law and considering the judgments in Jitendra Nath Biswas's case (supra) and Mohar Singh's case (supra), has held to the following effect:- “33. A dispute arising in between an employer and employee may or may not be an industrial dispute. The dispute may be in relation to or arising out of a fundamental right of the employee, or his right under a Parliamentary Act and the regulations framed thereunder, and/or a right arising under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act or the sister laws and may relate to same or similar rights or different rights, or even may be based on common law right or contractual right. The question in regard to the jurisdiction of the civil court must, therefore, be addressed having regard to the fact as to which rights or obligations are sought to be enforced for the purpose of invoking or excluding the jurisdiction of the civil court. Civil Revision No. 1637 of 2009 (3) xx xx xx 36. If an employee intends to enforce his constitutional rights or a right under a statutory regulation, the civil court will have the necessary jurisdiction to try a suit. If, however, he claims his right and corresponding obligations only in terms of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act or the sister laws so called, the civil court will have none. In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, it would not be correct to contend that only because the employee concerned is also a workman within the meaning of the provisions of the 1947 Act or the conditions of his service are otherwise governed by the Standing Orders certified under the 1946 Act, ipso facto the civil court will have no jurisdiction......” In view of the above, the proposition of law is clear that when a grievance is made in respect of violation of a right created under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the remedy provided under the aforesaid Act alone is to be availed. In the present case, the plaintiff is not challenging any right created for the first time under the Act, but challenging the order of dismissal affecting civil rights under common law and thus, the civil court, will have jurisdiction to entertain such a suit. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 06-07-2009 ds