Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ishwar Dass vs Punjab State Civil Supplies ... on 4 March, 2014
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Civil Revision No.483 of 2012(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.483 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision:04.03.2014
Ishwar Dass .....Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation
Limited and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.V.K.Shukla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms.Ritam Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) The challenge, in this petition by the petitioner-defendant, is to the impugned order dated 14.11.2011(Annexure P-4), by virtue of which, the trial Court has dismissed his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint.
2. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, while deciding a bunch of similar revision petitions, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (A.N.Jindal, J.) has framed the following identical questions:-
"1. Whether the suit filed by the respondents-Corporation for recovery of the amount on account of shortage of paddy, wheat stock, dead stock articles, quality cut, loss of interest on account of late submission of documents with the F.C.I. and lack of supervision, was competent against the petitioners/employee?
2. Whether the departmental inquiry proceedings were the only remedy to recover the said amount?"
3. After considering the various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, similar pleas were negated by this Court, by means of order dated December 06, 2012 rendered in main Civil Revision No.6253 of 2011, Rani Seema 2014.03.06 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.483 of 2012(O&M) 2 titled as Ram Singh Versus Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Chandigarh and others, which in substance is as under:-
"As a matter of fact, the jurisdiction to get the right decided from the civil court unless it is barred by any stature would not be treated as barred by the civil court. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Versus Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, 2004 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 816, took note of the observations made in Ramendra Kishore Biswas v. State of Tripura and others, AIR 1999 SC 294, wherein the Supreme Court observed that service rules neither expressly nor by implication have taken away the jurisdiction of the civil court to deal with the service matters. The opinion of the learned Single Judge does violence both to the Code of Civil Procedure, the Specific Relief Act and the Service Rules. As a matter of fact, it appears to us that the learned Single Judge failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested to him while non-suiting the appellant. It, therefore, appears appropriate to us to allow this appeal set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and remit the matter to the High Court for a fresh decision of the Regular Second Appeal and the cross-objections on their own merits.
In M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (supra), the Full Bench further clarified the law with the following observations:-
"In view of the precedents discussed above, the following principles can be enumerated to determine whether the jurisdiction of the civil Court can be said to be impliedly barred:-
(1) Ubi jus ibi remedium i.e. where there is a right there is a remedy. The jurisdiction of the civil Court cannot be said to impliedly barred in respect of pre-existing common law right i.e. where the dispute has been characteristics of affecting one's right which is not only of civil but of civil nature as well. An exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not readily to be inferred unless the conditions set down apply. (2) Where a right or liability in respect whereof grievance has been made had been created under an enactment and it did not relate to pre-existing common law, the jurisdiction of the civil Court can be said to be barred if on inquiry the Court finds that adequate and efficacious alternative remedy is provided under the act creating right and the liability under that Special Act.
(3) When a statute gives finality to the orders passed by the Special Tribunal so constituted, the jurisdiction of the civil court can be said to be barred if there is identical remedy to do what the civil Court would do normally in a suit. However, such provision does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure.
(4) Even in those cases where the jurisdiction of a civil court can be said to be impliedly barred, the civil Court will nonetheless retain its jurisdiction and adjudicate the suit provided the order complained of is a nullity.
In view of the principles of bar of jurisdiction referred to above, we answer question No.1 referred for the decision of this Bench and hold that the jurisdiction of the civil Court cannot be said to be impliedly barred in terms of Section 9 of the Code on the basis of the scheme framed under section 79 of the Act.
QUESTION NO.2 Rani Seema 2014.03.06 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.483 of 2012(O&M) 3
29. In Ashwani Kumar's case (supra), two Judges Bench of the Supreme Court has held that the circulars issued by the Board from time to time indicate a fundamental fairness of the procedure and, thus, by necessary implication civil court shall not be justified in entertaining the suits. In paragraph No. 10 of the judgment, Supreme Court held as under:-
"The question then arises: whether the Civil Court would be justified in entertaining the suit and issue injunction as prayed for? It is true, as contended by Shri Goyal, learned Senior Counsel,s that the objections were raised in the written statement as to the maintainability of the suit but the same (was) given up. Section 9 of CPC provides that Civil Court shall try all suits of civil nature, subject to pecuniary jurisdiction, unless their cognizance is expressly or by necessary implication barred. Such suit would not be maintainable. It is true that ordinarily, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to go into and try the disputed questions of civil nature, where the fundamental fairness of procedure has been violated. The statutory circulars adumbrated above do indicate that a fundamental fairness of the procedure has been prescribed in the rules and is being followed. By necessary implications, the cognizance of the civil cause has been excluded. As a consequence, the Civil Court shall not be justified in entertaining this suit and giving the declaration without directing the party to avail of the remedy provided under the Indian Electricity Act and the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act and the instructions issued by the Board in that behalf from time to time as stated above."
And, therefore, in respect of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it would have to be held that the civil court would have the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit of civil nature against the petitioners/employees, unless expressly or implidely excluded by any statute. Unlike the Rules framed by the Punjab State Electricity Board providing a fairness procedure there no such rules framed by the Corporation which may bar the jurisdiction of the civil court by necessary implication."
4. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the controversy involved, is identical to the one and the instant petition is liable to be dismissed in the same terms of the order dated December 06, 2012 rendered in Ram Singh's case(supra).
5. In the light of aforesaid reasons and in view of the ratio of law laid down in the indicated judgment, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
March 04, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR)
seema JUDGE
Rani Seema
2014.03.06 15:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh