Supreme Court of India
Sitaram Kashiram Konda vs Pigment Cakes & Chemicals Mfg. Co on 27 July, 1979
Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 16, 1980 SCR (1) 125, AIR 1980 SUPREME COURT 16, 1979 LAB. I. C. 1378, (1980) 1 SCR 125 (SC), 1980 (1) SCR 125, 39 FACLR 347, 1979 SCC (L&S) 351, 1979 (4) SCC 12, (1980) 3 MAHLR 8, (1979) 55 FJR 268, (1979) 2 LAB LN 337, (1979) 2 LABLJ 444, (1979) SERVLJ 552
Author: N.L. Untwalia
Bench: N.L. Untwalia, A.P. Sen
PETITIONER:
SITARAM KASHIRAM KONDA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
PIGMENT CAKES & CHEMICALS MFG. CO.
DATE OF JUDGMENT27/07/1979
BENCH:
UNTWALIA, N.L.
BENCH:
UNTWALIA, N.L.
SEN, A.P. (J)
CITATION:
1980 AIR 16 1980 SCR (1) 125
1979 SCC (4) 12
ACT:
Termination of Service-Declaratory suit to set aside
the termination and for awarding compensation-Dispute
whether of a civil nature cognizable by a civil court.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant filed a suit against his employer, the
respondent, for a declaration that he had been removed from
service illegally and without any reason and that he should
be reinstated in his former job with due benefits and
advantages. He also claimed compensation. The trial court
held that the dispute raised by the appellant was in the
nature of an industrial dispute and that the civil court had
no jurisdiction to try the same. The First Appellate Court
allowed the appeal and held that the dispute raised was of a
civil nature and the case was cognizable by a civil court.
In the respondent's second appeal, the High Court agreed
with the view of the trial court and held that the appellant
had not claimed damages by pleading wrongful dismissal and
breach of the contract of his service and that the facts
pleaded in the plaint showed that the dispute was an
industrial dispute cognizable only by an industrial court
and not by a civil court.
In the further appeal to this Court the point for
consideration was whether on the facts pleaded by the
appellant the dispute was an industrial dispute cognizable
only by an industrial court and not by a civil court.
Allowing the appeal,
^
HELD:(1) It is not quite correct to say that the suit
as filed by the appellant is not maintainable at all in a
civil court. The main reliefs asked for by the appellant
which when granted will amount to specific performance of
the contract of service and, therefore, they cannot be
granted. But the appellant in the alternative has also
claimed for awarding compensation to him. [127A-C]
(2) Reading the plaint as a whole, it can legitimately
be culled out that the appellant had made out a case that he
was wrongfully dismissed from service. This relief could be
granted by the civil court if it found that the plaintiff's
case was true. The High Court was not right in saying that
no such case had at all been made in the plaint. To this
limited extent the matter could be examined by the civil
court. [127D-E]
Dr. S. B. Dutt v. University of Delhi, [1959] SCR 1236;
S. R. Tewari v. Distt. Board Agra & Anr., [1964] 3 SCR 55;
Indian Airlines Corp. v. Sukhdeo Rai, [1971] Suppl. SCR 510,
Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of
Bombay & Ors., [1976] 1 SCR 427; referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1969.
126From the Judgment and Order dated 20th June, 1968 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 48/66.
K. Jayaram, Amicus Curiae for the Appellant. Y. S. Chitaley, M. V. Goswami and Ambrish Kumar for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA, J.-The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit in the Trial Court in the year 1963 alleging certain unjustifiable and illegal actions on the part of his employer, the respondent in this appeal. The reliefs claimed in the suit were the following:-
"(a) That it may be declared that the defendant has removed the plaintiff from service illegally and without any reason.
(b) That it may be declared that the defendant failed and neglected to re-employ the plaintiff although the defendant restarted the factory.
(c) That the defendant be ordered to reinstate the plaintiff to his former job with due benefits and advantages.
(d) In the alternative the defendant may be ordered to pay to the plaintiff such compensation as to the Hon'ble Court may deem fit.
(e) For costs of the suit.
(f) For such further and other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit."
On contest by the respondent, the Trial Court held that the dispute raised by the appellant was in the nature of an industrial dispute and hence the Civil Court had to jurisdiction to try it. The appellant took the matter in appeal before the First Appellate Court. It allowed the appeal and held that the dispute raised was of a civil nature and the case was cognizable by a Civil Court. The respondent filed the second appeal in the High Court and the High Court has agreed with the view of the Trial Court. It has said that the appellant had not claimed damages by pleading wrongful dismissal and breach of the contract of his service. The facts pleaded by him all converged to show that the dispute was an industrial dispute cognizable only by an industrial court and not by a Civil Court. The appellant has presented his appeal in this Court by a certificate granted by the High Court.
127The Court is obliged to Mr. K. Jayaram for assisting it as Amicus Curiae in this case. After having appreciated the entire facts and the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it is not quite correct to say that the suit filed by the appellant is not maintainable at all in a Civil Court. The correct position of law is that the main reliefs asked for by him which when granted will amount to specific performance of the contract of service and therefore they cannot be granted. There are a number of decisions of this Court to that effect; to wit-Dr. S. B. Dutt v. University of Delhi(1), S. R. Tiwari v. District Board Agra & Anr.(2) and Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai.(3) Reference was also be made in this connection to the decision of this Court in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay and Ors.(4) But then in the alternative, the appellant had also prayed for awarding compensation to him. And reading the plaint as a whole, it can legitimately be culled out that he had made out a case, whether it was right on fact or not, that is a different question, that he was wrongfully dismissed from service. This relief could be granted by the Civil Court if it found that the plaintiff's case was true. The High Court, in our opinion, is not right in saying that no such case had at all been made out in the plaint. In our opinion, as we have earlier said, reading the plaint as a whole, such case can be spelt out. That being so to this limited extent, the matter could be examined by the Civil Court.
We accordingly allow the appeal set aside the judgments of the courts below and send back the case to the Trial Court for disposing it of in accordance with law in the light of this judgment. There will be no order as to costs. Since the suit has become very old, the Trial Court is directed to dispose it of as expeditiously as possible.
N.V.K. Appeal allowed.
128