Case: RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. MANAGING DIRECTOR &amp; ANR Vs. RAMESH KUMAR SHARMA

3. The civil suit was filed by the workmen for declaration and permanent injunction assailing a fine imposed on them by the appellant management. It is, inter alia, the plea of the respondents that what has been done is in violation of Regulation 35 of the standing order (which is non-statutory) in effect thus, the contractual obligation inter se the parties is alleged to have been breached4. The appellant endeavoured to stall the suit by raising a plea under order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 claiming that the plaint is liable to be rejected and the respondents to be relegated to the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The plea did not find favour with the learned Civil Judge, Jaipur City who dismissed that application by order dated 16.5.2006. The revision petition preferred against the same was dismissed by the High Court on 27.02.2008.

Reasoning: 5. We may note that only notice was issued in the matter and no interim order was granted. Logically speaking, the suit would have been tried and decided in the meantime, if not the appeal also considering the time period which has lapsed. We are, however, informed that the suit has not even been proceeded with on the basis that matter is pending before this Court. The facts pain us that the recourse to justice can be delayed for such an ad infinitum period of time8. We must keep in mind that the Industrial Dispute Act is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for the benefit of the workmen to provide ?speedy, inexpensive, informal and unencumbered by the plethora of procedural laws. The object is thus, to protect the workmen9. It has also been observed that dispute arises from general law of contract, i.e., where reliefs are claimed on the basis of the general law of contract, a suit filed in civil court cannot be said to be not maintainable, even though such a dispute may also constitute an "industrial dispute" within the meaning of Section 2(k) or Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is only when the dispute involves recognition, observance or inforcement of or obligations created by the Industrial Disputes Act, the only remedy would be exclusively under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act Act. The facts of this case involved the termination of service of workmen and thus the remedy was inter alia under the Industrial Disputes Act10. The present case involves recovery of certain fine amount which cannot be said to be covered by Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workmen in their wisdom (or possibly, lack of it) approached the civil Court and have been left high and dry for the last fifteen years without any adjudication on merits of their claims. We may also note that the impugned orders are also, in a sense interlocutory in character.