1 S.B.Civil Second Appeal No.94/03 R.S.R.T.C. & anr. vs. Tulsi Ram Date of order: 14.5.2007 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. B.S.Bhati for the appellants. Mr. G.R.Bhari for the respondent. The appellant is aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court dated 5.8.2002 by which the first appellate court allowed the appeal of the plaintiff-respondent and decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent and declared the order of removal of respondent-plaintiff from service dated 16.2.1982(Ex.3) illegal. The first appellate court also granted consequential benefits to the plaintiff. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff, the temporary appointed driver of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation was convicted by the Flying Magistrate and a fine of Rs.200/- was imposed upon him. According to the plaintiff, he preferred appeal against the said conviction which was pending. The plaintiff was removed from service by order passed by the defendant dated 16.2.1982. That order was challenged by the plaintiff by filing the civil suit. The plaintiff's suit was decided by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 28.11.1989. The judgment and decree of the trial court dated 2 28.11.1989 was challenged by preferring appeal wherein by the order of the appellate court 27.7.1998, an additional issue with respect to civil court's jurisdiction was framed by the appellate court and the matter was remitted to the trial court for deciding additional issue no.3 about civil court's jurisdiction. The trial court, after said order of the appellate court, decided issue about jurisdiction of the civil court vide order dated 14.8.2001.The trial court found the jurisdiction of the civil court and sent back the finding to the appellate court. The appellate court, by impugned judgment and decree dated 5.8.1982 confirmed the finding of the trial court about jurisdiction of the civil court and set aside the trial court's decree dismissing the suit and decreed the plaintiff's suit for declaration and held that removal of plaintiff from service is illegal. Following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court while admitting this appeal:- “Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1975 SC 2238 or since the remedy was available to the plaintiff to initiate proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the suit is barred in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1989) 3 SCC 582?” The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the 3 controversy is covered by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke and ors (AIR 1975 SC 2238) and Jitendra Nath Biswas v. M/s Empire of India and Ceylone Tea Co. and another (1989) 3 SCC 582)” and now by recent pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of R.S.R.T.C. & ors. vs. Ramdhara Indoliya (2006) 6 SCC 287) and the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Zakir Hussain (2005(7) SCC 447), the same view has been taken by this Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur through its General Manager cum Managing Director and anr. v. Jagdish Prasad Chejara (S.B.Civil Second Appeal No.706/2003) decided on 18.9.2006. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that initially the issue of civil court's jurisdiction was not raised by the respondent but the appellate court framed the issue of civil court's jurisdiction by order dated 14.8.2001. The civil court, thereafter, recorded finding in favour of the plaintiff and held that the civil court has jurisdiction. The first appellate court also held that the civil court has jurisdiction, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and decree. In view of the judgments referred above, it is clear that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit with respect to the service matters of the plaintiff-respondent and, therefore, the 4 substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court dated 5.8.2002 is set aside. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. ( PRAKASH TATIA ),J. mlt.