CSA 118/97 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil 2nd Appeal No.118/1997 R.S.R.T.C. & Anr. Versus Durga Saran Saxena Date of Order ::: 31/01/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Deepak Goyal, for appellants (defendants) None, for respondent (plaintiff) Instant second appeal has been filed by defendants assailing judgment & decree dt. 07/11/96 whereby Addl.District Judge No.8, Jaipur City while partly allowing defendant's appeal ((192/96(94/90)} set aside judgment & decree dt. 05/12/89 passed by Addl. Munsif No.3, Jaipur City who decreed suit plaintiff (616/87) directing appellant (RSRTC) to reinstate respondent with back wages but upheld his reinstatement. Plaintiff (respondent) filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction questioning his termination dt.11/12/85 while working as conductor. Defendant (appellant) raised one of objections that grievance raised being industrial dispute can be agitated only before Industrial Tribunal and civil court has no jurisdiction but while over-ruling such an objection, and after taking note of material on record, learned trial CSA 118/97 //2// Judge set aside order of termination of plaintiff and decreed his suit directing defendant (RSRTC) to reinstate him alongwith back wages vide judgment dt.05/12/89 – against which defendant (RSRTC) preferred appeal which was partly allowed by appellate court vide judgment dt.07/11/96 setting aside decree of back wages but upholding reinstatement passed by trial court. Instant second appeal was admitted vide order dt.21/05/03 on substantial question of law ad infra: “(1) Whether the termination order dt.11/12/1985 which was passed as simplicitor order amounts to termination of service on the ground of misconduct and whether the departmental enquiry was necessary ? (2) Whether in view of RSRTC Vs. Krishna Kant reported in AIR 1995 SC 1715, civil court does not have jurisdiction to try the plaintiff's suit ? This Court has heard Counsel for appellant (RSRTC) and with his assistance, perused the impugned judgments passed by courts below. This court finds that dispute raised by plaintiff was an industrial dispute and being workman, only remedy lies before industrial tribunal under Industrial Disputes aCt, 1947 (“the Act”). CSA 118/97 //3// In RSRTC Vs. Zakir Hussain (2005(7) SCC 447), Apex Court has recently examined as to whether dispute raised by workman in regard to his service is an industrial dispute and in that case, such a dispute can be raised and considered by civil court or not; and the Apex Court held that such a dispute can only be raised before industrial Tribunal under the Act and the Civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Apex Court observed ad infra: “31. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the respondent ought to have approached the remedy provided under the Industrial Disputes Act. He has miserably failed to do so but approached the civil Court, which on the facts and circumstances of the case has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. “ Apex Court in RSRTC Vs. Ramdhara Indolia (2006(7) RDD 211(SC), observed ad infra: “3. We have heard Mr. S.K.Jain learned counsel for the appellants. The respondent was appointed as a conductor on daily wages by the corporation. His services were terminated as the same were not required by the corporation. The High Court, without considering the fact that the respondent being daily wager has no substantive right to hold the post, however, has committed serious CSA 118/97 //4// error in dismissing the second appeal filed by the Corporation and affirming the judgment & decree passed by appellate court and also of the trial Court. In our view, the High Court has committed a grave error in not considering the fact that the respondent being workman and a dispute being an industrial dispute, Civil Court has no jurisdiction and try the suit for reinstatement. Trial Court which passed the decree has got no pecuniary jurisdiction and, therefore, the decree passed by the Trial Court is without jurisdiction. The above submissions made by Mr. S.K.Jain merit acceptance. In fact in written statement filed by the appellant corporation, the question of jurisdiction has been specifically raised. The court has also framed an issue in regard to the jurisdiction and hearing by the civil court. However, the said issue has not been rightly considered and properly answered.” In view of decisions (supra), substantial questions of law formulated by this Court are fully covered by authoritative pronouncements of Apex Court and accordingly answered that very suit filed by plaintiff was not maintainable for the dispute which he has raised against termination of his services having been rendered as daily wager while working as conductor with CSA 118/97 //5// the RSRTC, and the only remedy lies therefor before industrial tribunal in view of the Act and not the civil suit, accordingly the Civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the suit itself, therefore, this Court is of the view that the courts below has committed grave error of law in decreeing plaintiff's suit because his grievance as to whether order of impugned termination was punitive or not cannot be considered by civil court. Interim order was passed on 19/03/07 observing that execution of decree shall remain stayed and in case respondent has been taken on duty, he will continue in service till further orders. But Counsel for appellant informs that respondent was never reinstated in service in compliance of the decree and he is not in service. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. Judgments & decree dt.07/11/96 & 05/12/89 passed by courts below (supra) are set aside. However, it will be open for respondent to approach the industrial Tribunal for his grievances in accordance with provisions of law. Records be returned back to courts below. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.5/118CSA97rtcall.doc.