C.R. 695 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. 695 of 2008 Date of decision:- 16.12.2009 Sumer Singh Saini petitioner vs Hindustan Machines and Tools Ltd. and others Respondent Present: Mr. AP Bhandari, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Anand Chibbar, Advocate for respondents 1 to 4 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? M.M.S.BEDI,J. The suit filed by the plaintiff- petitioner on 23.2.2004 has been dismissed on 13.12.2007 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on an application filed by the defendant- respondents by passing the following order:- “ So far as the application moved by the learned counsel on behalf of the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is concerned, the same is allowed because the plaintiff has left with no cause of action in the present case as the amendment application filed by the plaintiff is dismissed by the court of the undersigned. The plaintiff has already been dismissed from service w.e.f. 17.9.2005. The plaintiff has invoked the jurisdiction of the Industrial Disputes Tribunal, wherein he has challenged his termination and also claimed the relief which is the subject matter of the present suit. Therefore, the application of the applicant- defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 C.R. 695 of 2008 2 CPC is allowed and the plaint of the plaintiff is rejected. File after due compliance be consigned to the record-room.” I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for respondents 1 to 4. The relief, which was claimed by the plaintiff- petitioner in his suit was for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant- respondents 1 to 4 to promote him as a Supervisor/WS I/ PS II with all benefits of seniority with due increments of 2002 and 2003 and also seeking the payment of salary from December 2001 to December 2002 along with interest and other benefits accruing therefrom. It was during the pendency of the suit that the plaintiff, for the same reasons, has been dismissed from service w.e.f. 17.9.2005. The dispute regarding the validity of dismissal order is the subject matter of a dispute pending before the Industrial Disputes Tribunal sequel to the reference u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 has not been able to satisfy this court that the subject matter of the suit, filed by the plaintiff, also constitutes a part of the reference made against the dismissal order. The trial court has not considered the said circumstance while allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant- respondents. Learned counsel has vehemently urged that the civil court does not have any jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, as such the suit of the plaintiff had been rightly dismissed in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. There is no dispute regarding the ambit of jurisdiction the Industrial Disputes Tribunal and the jurisdiction of the civil court in the matters of violation of civil rights of the citizens. The plea regarding the absence of the jurisdiction of the civil court in the subject matter, sought to be adjudicated by the plaintiff in the present suit, could have been taken by the defendant- respondents in the written statement. Learned counsel for C.R. 695 of 2008 3 respondents 1 to 4 informs that this plea has been raised before the civil court besides contesting the suit of the plaintiff- petitioner on merits. A perusal of the order dated 13.12.2007, passed by the trial court, indicates that the dismissal of the plaintiff from service on 17.9.2005, subsequent to the filing of the suit, has inter alia weighed with the trial court while dismissing the suit. The impugned order, on the face of it, is not sustainable. It was open to the trial court to dismiss the suit on merits after considering the legal and factual position, arising out of the pleadings and the evidence but shutting the doors of the court after three years of the plaintiff having filed the suit merely on the basis of the subsequent event, is not appropriate. In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 13.12.2007 is hereby set aside without expression of any opinion on merits of the case. The trial court is directed to take up the further proceedings in accordance with law. Anything said in this order, will not, in any manner, prejudice the rights of the parties at the time of final adjudication of the matter. The trial court will take up the matter after issuing notices to the other affected parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed vide the same impugned order. It will be open to the trial court to reconsider the said application and pass any appropriate order. December 16 ,2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) TSM JUDGE