R.S.A No. 1987 of 2008 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M Nos.5908 & 09-CII of 2008 and R.S.A No. 1987 of 2008 Date of decision : August 11, 2009 State of Haryana and another, ...... Appellant (s) v. Balbir Singh, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. S.S.Goripuria, DAG Haryana for the appellants. Mr. Heman Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent. *** 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) C.M.No.5908-CII of 2008 For the reasons stated, C.M is allowed and delay of 48 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M.No.5909-CII of 2008 and RSA No.1987 of 2008 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent whereby he challenged the order of the punishing authority which differed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. The ground taken was that no reasons were given by the R.S.A No. 1987 of 2008 (O&M) ::2:: punishing authority as to what weighed with it to differ with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. The following question has been proposed :- “ Whether the civil Court had any jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the plaintiff-respondent since the same was within the purview of the Industrial Disputes Tribunal ?” Counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others vs Zakir Hussain, (2005) 7 SCC 447 and Rajasthan SRTC and others vs Ramdhara Indoliya, (2006) 6 SCC 287. In Zakir Hussain's case (supra), the services of a probationer conductor were terminated. It was not disputed that the said services were governed by the Standing Orders of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. In Ramdhara Indoliya's case (supra), similarly the services of a daily wage conductor were terminated. Thus, concededly in both the cases, the law applicable was the Industrial Disputes Act. In Premier Automobiles Ltd v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke, (1976)1 SCC 496, relied upon in the case of Zakir Hussain's case (supra), it was held as follows :- “ The principles applicable to the jurisdiction of the civil Courts in relation to an industrial dispute may be stated thus : (1) If the dispute is not an industrial dispute, nor does it relate to enforcement of any other right under the Act, the remedy lies only in the civil court. R.S.A No. 1987 of 2008 (O&M) ::3:: (2) If the dispute is an industrial dispute arising out of a right or liability under the general or common law and not under the Act, the jurisdiction of the civil court is alternative, leaving it to the election of the suitor concerned to choose his remedy for the relief which is competent to be granted in a particular remedy. (3) If the industrial dispute relates to the enforcement of a right or an obligation created under the Act, then the only remedy available to the suitor is to get an adjudication under the Act. (4) If the right which is sought to be enforced is a right created under the Act, such as Chapter V-A, then the remedy for its enforcement is either Section 33-C or the raising of an industrial dispute as the case may be. In relation to Principle 2 stated above, their Lordships feel there will hardly be a dispute which will be an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) and yet will be one arising out of a right or liability under the general or common law only and not under the Act. Such a contingency, for example, may arise in regard to dismissal of an unsponsored workman which in view of the provision of law contained in Section 2-A will be an industrial dispute. Civil Courts, therefore, will have hardly an occasion to deal with the type of cases falling R.S.A No. 1987 of 2008 (O&M) ::4:: under Principle 2. Cases of industrial disputes, by and large, are invariably bound to be covered by Principle 3 stated above.” In my opinion, in the present case, the right claimed by the respondent fell under Principle 1 or Principle 2 (supra) and, thus, the civil Court had the jurisdiction. It would be seen that the right being claimed by the respondent flew from the rules of natural justice and not any statutory provision under the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, this appeal as also the application for stay are dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) August 11, 2009. JUDGE `kk'