Case: R.S.R.T.C.  Vs. Zakir Hussain

3. The respondent was appointed as conductor on daily wages with the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. He was appointed as conductor on probation for a period of two years. The services of the respondent were terminated on 08.05.1984 as the same were not found to be satisfactory. Necessary compensation was paid to the respondent as per the rules of the Corporation vide Order No. 297. Against the order of termination, the respondent-plaintiff filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which was dismissed on 22.10.19844. The respondent filed a suit for declaration in the Court of Additional Munsiff, Jaipur alleging that the order of termination dated 08.05.1984 and the order of the appellate Authority dated 22.10.1984 being illegal, bad in law and against the principles of natural justice and, therefore, is liable to be set aside and that the respondent- plaintiff is entitled to continue in service without any break5. It was further alleged that the services of the respondent were terminated simpliciter but in fact, the same were terminated on the basis of the remarks made by the checking staff on 01.05.1984 when the respondent was on duty. The trial Court framed four issues. Issue No. 2 relates to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and try the suit. The trial Court held that since the services of the respondent have been terminated on the basis of the remarks without holding any enquiry, the order dated 08.05.1984 terminating the services of the respondent and the order passed by the appellate Authority dated 20.10.1984 dismissing the appeal are illegal and against the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the trial Court set aside the above two orders. The trial Court finally passed the following order:- "In the result, it is ordered that the suit of the plaintiff is decreed against the defendant. It is declared that the order No. 297 dated 08.05.1984 passed by the defendant terminating the services of the plaintiff, and the order passed by the Appellate authority dated 20.10.1984 dismissing the appeal is illegal, bad in law and against the principle of natural justice, therefore, is set aside. It is further declared that the plaintiff would be entitled to continue in service without any break and would also be entitled to all the monetary benefits and allowances, as he would have been entitled while continuing in service."6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, the appellant-Corporation filed an appeal before the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur being Civil Regular Appeal No. 138 of 1989. The said Court dismissed the appeal. The second appeal filed by the Corporation before the High Court was also dismissed on 24.09.2002. The High Court declined to interfere with the orders passed by the lower Courts since there is concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below and that no substantial question of law arises. Being aggrieved, the appellant-Corporation preferred the present Special Leave Petition No. 5978 of 2003 questioning the correctness of the orders passed by the Courts below and of the High Court particularly on the question of jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain and try the suit in respect of an industrial dispute.

Reasoning:
14. Applying the above principles, this Court held that the suits filed by the employees of the Corporation were not maintainable in law. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court declined to set aside the decree concerned in the appeals. This Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances of those matters, modified the decrees in those matters by reducing the back wages to half. This Court also has further observed that these orders are made in view of the fact that the position of law was not clear until now and it cannot be said that the respondents had not acted bona fide in instituting the suits and disposed of the appeals accordingly in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. We have already reproduced the principles laid down in para 35 (supra). Applying the above principles, this Court has categorically held that the suits filed by the respondents in the appeals were not maintainable in law17. In the present case, the nature of the employment of the workmen was in dispute. This was an issue which should have been resolved on the basis of evidence led. The Division Bench erred in rejecting the appellants submission summarily as also in placing the onus on the appellant to produce the appointment letters of the respondent workmen. There was also a dispute as to the nature of the absence of the respondent workmen. Significantly, the High Court has not relied upon the correspondence said to have been exchanged between the parties with regard to the demands raised by the respondent Union nor has it come to any decision on the question whether the strike in question was illegal or legal. In fact the High Court has proceeded on the basis that it was the accepted case that there was no notice given by the workmen that they were on strike. It cannot, therefore, be said, without more, that the absence of the respondent workmen from work was because they were on strike21. In so far as the appellant is concerned, the Industrial Disputes Act not only confers the right on a worker for reinstatement and back wages if the order of termination or dismissal is not in accordance with the Standing Orders but also provides a detailed procedure and machinery for getting this relief. Under these circumstances therefore there is an apparent implied exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court44. Learned counsel for the respondent placing strong reliance on the judgment in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation And Anr. v. Krishna Kant and Others reported in [1995] 3 SCR 1118 submitted that since the decree has been passed by the trial Court on 28.07.1989 and the appeal filed by the Corporation was dismissed on 27.09.1989 which was pending prior to the judgment reported in 1995 SCR (3) 1118, the respondent is right in approaching the civil court.This contention has no force. This Court has very explicitly summarised the principles flowing from the discussion in the judgment in para 35 and applying the above principles this Court has categorically held that the suits filed by the employees in those appeals were not maintainable in law. But, however, granted certain reliefs by reducing the back wages etc. etc. in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, in our opinion, the above judgment will not be of any assistance or aid to the claim of the respondent43. It is seen from para 11 of the written statement that the management has subsequently raised the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in deciding an industrial dispute. Learned District Munsiff has also framed an issue in regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to hear the suit. The same issue was raised before the other forums. However, lower Courts and the High Court has miserably failed to advert to this issue and failed to render a satisfactory finding. As already noticed, the services of the respondent were terminated simpliciter and does not contain any stigma and, therefore, there was no requirement under the law to hold any enquiry before terminating the services. The Courts below have also committed serious error in granting back wages along with reinstatement. Even otherwise, the respondent has not led any evidence before the trial Court except his own ipsi dixit to show that his services were terminated on the ground of any alleged misconduct. Therefore, it was not obligatory on the part of the Corporation to hold an enquiry before terminating the services. It is also settled that the employees of the Corporation are not civil servants and, therefore, they are not entitled to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Their terms of appointment is governed by the letter of appointment and, therefore, the management was well within its right to terminate the services of the respondent-probationer during the period of probation if his services were not found to be satisfactory during the said period. The Courts below and the High Court have committed serious error in decreeing the suit as prayed for and for directing reinstatement with full back wages45. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the respondent ought to have approached the remedies 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. The respondent has not acted bona fide in instituting the suit. It is seen from the order of the High Court that the respondent had been reinstated in service in the year 1990 and the back wages had also been paid to him.