CSA 110/92 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil 2nd Appeal No.110/1992 Rajendra K.Saxena Versus R.S.R.T.C. & Anr. Date of Order ::: 31/01/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi None, for appellant (plaintiff) It is a matter of the year 1992. No one appeared on behalf of appellant. Instant second appeal has been filed by plaintiff assailing judgment & decree dt. 16/05/92 whereby Civil Judge, Kota while allowing defendant's appeal (3/90) set aside judgment & decree dt.19/07/90 passed by Munsif Magistrate, Kota (North) who decreed his suit (71/88). Plaintiff (appellant) filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction questioning his termination dt.05/02/87 while working as conductor. Allegation against him was that four passengers were found without ticket while he was performing duty as conductor. After taking note of material on record, learned trial Judge set aside order of termination of plaintiff and decreed his suit directing defendant (RSRTC) to reinstate him alongwith salary & allowances (back wages) vide judgment dt.19/07/90 – against which CSA 110/92 //2// defendant (RSRTC) preferred appeal which was allowed by appellate court vide judgment dt. 16/05/92 and decree of reinstatement alongwith back wages passed by trial court was set aside. Instant second appeal was admitted vide order dt.11/06/92 on substantial question of law ad infra: “(1) Whether in the facts & circumstances of the case, termination of service of petitioner can be said to be have been brought about on the basks of allegation of misconduct or it has been passed by way of punishment ? and (2) Whether learned civil Judge Kota was justified in coming to a finding that the termination of the service of the petitioner was not punitive in character ? This Court perused judgments impugned passed by courts below and finds that in addition to substantial questions of law formulated vide order dt.11/06/92, following substantial question of law emerge for consideration and disposal of the appeal : “Whether civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit for reinstatement filed by plaintiff ? 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 CSA 110/92 //3// by civil court or not; and the Apex Court held that such a dispute can only be raised before industrial Tribunal under Industrial Disputes aCt, 1947 (“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. “ In instant case, defendant in his written statement pleaded that plaintiff was appointed purely on temporary basis on daily wage of Rs.30/- vide order dt.29/08/86 and even he has not completed 180 days service, while he was conductor on 15/11/86, 4 passengers were found without tickets, therefore, his services were terminated vide order dt.05/02/87 (Ex.1). After taking note of material on record, appellate court recorded the finding that services of plaintiff being daily wager, could have been terminated without holding inquiry for the misconduct of four passengers having been found CSA 110/92 //4// without tickets during his duty on 15/11/86. In similar circumstances, 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 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 CSA 110/92 //5// 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), once it is settled law 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 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 his grievance as to whether order of impugned termination was punitive or not cannot be be considered by civil court and does not require adjudication. No substantial questions of law arise in instant appeal, which may warrant interference. While admitting appeal, interim order was passed by this Court on 11/06/92 pursuant to which, if appellant has been re-instated, it is made clear that his service shall not be dispensed with and plaintiff is directed to approach appropriate Government within two months for making reference and the appropriate CSA 110/92 //6// Government shall make reference within three months thereafter, before Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, and it may be expeditiously decided in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that continuance of plaintiff in service will be subject to final out-come of the Reference. With the observations (supra), the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Records be returned back to courts below. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.6/110CSA92rtcdis.doc.