Karnataka High Court
North West Karnataka Road Transport ... vs Basavaraj S/O Shankarappa Revannavar on 12 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14585
RSA No. 227 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.227 OF 2007 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
NORTH WEST KARNATAKA
ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
HUBLI DIVISION, HUBLI-580 020,
BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
BASAVARAJ
S/O. SHANKARAPPA REVANNAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
NO.68, SIRUR PARK,
VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI-580 020.
Digitally
signed by ... RESPONDENT
VISHAL
VISHAL NINGAPPA (BY SRI. ANANT P.SAVADI, ADVOCATE)
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL
PATTIHAL Date:
2023.12.15
10:31:03 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100
+0530
OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.08.2006
PASSED IN R.A. NO.70/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE (SR.DN.), HUBBALLI ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.02.2005, PASSED IN
O.S. NO.206/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE I-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN.), HUBBALLI.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14585
RSA No. 227 of 2007
JUDGMENT
1. The present regular second appeal by the North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation ("Corporation" for short) assailing the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2006 on the file of the II-Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hubballi, in R.A. No.70/2005, reversing the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2005 on the file of I-Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Hubballi, in O.S. No.206/2004, decreeing the suit holding that the order dated 28.08.2001 passed by the defendant is declared as null and void and further the defendant is directed to restore the basic pay of the plaintiff for the present.
2. In the present appeal, this Court while admitting the regular second appeal on 11.08.2009 framed the following substantial question of law:
"Whether the lower appellate Court is legally correct in holding that the enquiry conducted by the respondent and the penalty passed as illegal when separate mechanism is provided under the Regulations of the appellant - Corporation?"-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14585 RSA No. 227 of 2007
3. Learned counsel Smt.Veena Hegde appearing for the appellant-Corporation and learned counsel Shri Anant P.Savadi appearing for respondent have been heard on the substantial question of law framed by this Court and the judgment and decree of the Courts below including the original records have been perused.
4. Brief facts of the case are that, suit for declaration that the order dated 28.08.2001, reducing the basic pay of the plaintiff by five incremental stages permanently be declared as illegal, null and void and by way of consequential relief, the plaintiff sought a direction to the defendant to restore the basic pay of the plaintiff reduced on account of the impugned order, dated 28.08.2001 and further direction was sought to refund the sum of Rs.29,238/- with interest at 10% p.a. The case of plaintiff as set up in the plaint is that, the plaintiff is working as a conductor with the defendant and articles of charges were framed on 13.10.1999 which was served upon him, however, according to the plaintiff, the same is -4- NC: 2023:KHC-D:14585 RSA No. 227 of 2007 not in accordance with law and the charge sheet was highly pre judged and the same is bad in law. It is the case of the plaintiff that the said order of dismissal from service is without affording an opportunity of defence and hearing and in the breach of principles of natural justice.
5. The defendant-Corporation filed its written statement pursuant to the summons issued by the trial Court inter alia, contending that the enquiry conducted by the Corporation was by affording sufficient opportunity to the plaintiff before the disciplinary authority. The plaintiff had appeared and participated in the proceedings and the proceeding initiated by the Enquiry Officer was in accordance with C & D Regulations of KSRTC and there is no violation of the principles of natural justice, since after receipt of the finding of the disciplinary authority, show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff.
6. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings, framed the following issues & additional issue: -5-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14585 RSA No. 227 of 2007 (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that Articles of charges dated 13.10.1999 is not in accordance with law?
(2) Whether plaintiff proves that, the enquiry conducted by Enquiry Officer and finding of the Disciplinary Authority was by violating the principles of natural justice?
(3) Whether defendant proves that, this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit?
(4) Whether the Court fee is sufficiently paid?
(5) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
ADDITIONAL ISSUE Whether the plaintiff proves that the order passed by the Disciplinary authority on 28.08.2001 is illegal, null and void?"
7. The Trial Court by the judgment and decree held that:
(i) the plaintiff has failed to prove that the article of charges dated 13.10.1999 is not in accordance with law;-6-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14585 RSA No. 227 of 2007
(ii) the plaintiff has failed to prove that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer and the finding of the disciplinary authority was by violating the principles of natural justice and by the judgment and decree, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and consequential injunction. The trial Court was of the opinion that the plaintiff's grievance is against the enquiry conducted against him by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority and it is not coming within ambit of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, wherein, the parties had to approach the Labour Court and held that the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable before the Civil Court and answered issue No.3 in the negative, holding that the defendant failed to prove that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.
8. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff preferred appeal before the first appellate Court, the First Appellate Court, reversed the finding of the Trial Court and held that the defendant has not followed the -7- NC: 2023:KHC-D:14585 RSA No. 227 of 2007 principles of natural justice and the findings of the Enquiry Officer is not justifiable and by the impugned order, set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and held that the order dated 28.08.2001 passed by the defendant be declared as null and void, and the defendant was directed to restore the basic pay of the plaintiff for the present.
9. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the present second appeal by the appellant - Corporation.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant - Corporation contends that the first appellate Court has erroneously held that there was procedural lapses in the domestic enquiry conducted by the Corporation and the order of punishment was passed without observing that the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel would contend that the very suit before Civil Court was not maintainable in the light of the separate mechanism provided under the regulations of the appellant-Corporation. Learned counsel would contend that -8- NC: 2023:KHC-D:14585 RSA No. 227 of 2007 the Civil Court's jurisdiction was barred and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is maintainable only when there is violation of principles of common law or constitutional provisions or on the other grounds and the nature of right sought in the present case would not be the one to be covered under the Civil Court's jurisdiction. Learned counsel would contend that the first appellate Court has failed to consider that the enquiry conducted by the respondent was in accordance with law and in the absence of any violation of principles of natural justice and in light of the separate mechanism provided, the Civil Court's jurisdiction was totally barred. In support of her contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions:
(i) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others Vs. Deen Dayal Sharma1 [Deen Dayal Sharma]
(ii) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Bal Mukund Bairawa 2 [Bal Mukund Bairawa] 1 (2010) 6 SCC 697 2 (2009) 4 SCC 299 -9- NC: 2023:KHC-D:14585 RSA No. 227 of 2007
11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would justify the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court and would contend that the first appellate Court has rightly held that the principles of natural justice have been violated in not issuing notice to the plaintiff, when the Disciplinary Authority was holding articles of charge No.1 totally against the applicant. Learned counsel would contend that the suit before the Civil Court was very much maintainable in light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bal Mukund Bairawa stated supra to contend that when an employee is aggrieved by the disciplinary action, they can raise an industrial dispute as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or can avail the opportunity under the common law by filing a civil suit provided that the civil rights are infringed or constitutional rights or principles of natural justice have been violated and would contend that in the present case, the principles of natural justice have been infringed and the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable and the first appellate Court has rightly considered and decreed the suit of the
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14585 RSA No. 227 of 2007 plaintiff. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the following decisions:
(i) K.P. Puttaram Vs. Vijaya Bank Ltd.,3 [K.P. Puttaram]
(ii) Mohammed Ali Vs. the Management of Karnataka Electricity Board4 [Mohammed Ali]
(iii) Management of North West Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ramachandra Narayan Joshi5 [Ramachandra Narayan Joshi]
(iv) The KSRTC and another Vs. Andappa S/o.
Veerappa Guggari6 [Andappa]
(v) Huchegowda Vs. Karnataka Appellate 7 Tribunal [Huchegowda]
(vi) Government of Karnataka Vs Govinda Shetty8 [Govinda Shetty] 3 ILR 1991 KAR 3614;
4(2006) 6 AirKarR 555;
5RSA No.1104/2008, DD: 05.06.2014;
6RSA No.5051/2008, DD: 07.02.2014 7 (1985) ILR (Karnataka) 3696 8 ILR 1985 SCC Online 933
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14585 RSA No. 227 of 2007
(vii) P.V. Mahadevan Vs. MD. T.N... Housing Board9 [P.V. Mahadevan]
(viii) Ranjit Singh Vs. Union of Inida & Ors.10 [Ranjit Singh]
(ix) S.S. Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh11 [S.S. Rathore]
(x) Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limied and others Vs. Ananta Saha and others12 [Ananta Saha]
12. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the judgment and decree of the Courts below.
13. The Trial Court held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in light of the nature of right sought to be enforced by the plaintiff. The main grievance of the plaintiff as evident from the plaint 9 (2005) 6 SCC 636 10 AIR 2006 SC 3685 11 (1989) 4 SCC 582 12 (2011) 5 SCC 142
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14585 RSA No. 227 of 2007 averment, more particularly at paragraph No.2, which reads as under:
"2. That the plaintiff is working as conductor with the defendant and his service deserved high appreciation. But to the surprise of the plaintiff articles of charges dated 13.10.1999 came to be served and the same is not in accordance with C and D. The charge sheet was highly be pre judged and the same is bad in law. Though suitable reply was given refuting the allegations that were made against the plaintiff, an inquiry was ordered appointing sahayak Sanchar Vyavastapakaru as the enquiry officer and an enquiry was conducted in which the principles of natural justice were in toto were violated. An opportunity was not given to cross- examine the management witness was given and the enquiry officer despite it observed that the first charge was not proved and gave his findings and the same is produced and is at Annexure-A in the list of documents, since the enquiry officer had observed that the first charge was not proved, the Disciplinary Authority differed with the findings and without giving any show cause notice to plaintiff to show cause why he should not differ with the findings of enquiry of enquiry officer, state away passed order ordering that the basic pay of he plaintiff is reduced by five incremental stages permanently and passed
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14585 RSA No. 227 of 2007 order accordingly on 28/08/2001 and he said order is produced and the same is at Annexure-B in the list of document. It is submitted that the basic pay cannot be reduced."
14. Perusal of the plaint averments evidence that the plaintiff wants to contend that the Disciplinary Authority, while deferring with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, has violated the principles of natural justice in not issuing show- cause notice as to why the Disciplinary Authority should not defer with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and this is the reason for the plaintiff to contend that the principles of natural justice have been violated. Though the merits of framing of charges or holding of enquiry is not the jurisdiction of this Court as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff and the decisions placed in the said context, however, in order to arrive at a conclusion that there was violation of principles of natural justice and the same to come within the purview of jurisdiction of the Civil Court, it is necessary to consider the aspect of "whether non-issuance of notice by the
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14585 RSA No. 227 of 2007 Disciplinary Authority while confirming the order of the Enquiry Officer has led to violation of principles of natural justice". The charges framed by the Enquiry Officer at Ex.D5, articles of charge No.1 was partially proved holding that the charges leveled is proved and the Disciplinary Authority did not disagree with the findings of the enquiry, on the other hand, the findings of the enquiry officer was accepted by the disciplinary authority in its entirety and order of punishment was passed based on the findings of the enquiry officer, the procedure followed by the corporation was after the submission of the findings of the enquiry officer and thus, the plaintiff is unable to substantiate as to how the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer and findings of the disciplinary authority was by violating the principles of natural justice and to make the suit of the plaintiff maintainable before the Civil Court. The judgment relied by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent in the case of Bal Mukund Bairawa stated supra, the Apex Court has clearly held that the suit is maintainable before Civil Court, if it pertains to violation of
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14585 RSA No. 227 of 2007 principles of natural justice or constitutional provisions, the Apex Court clearly held that if the dispute arises out of rights and obligation under the Industrial Disputes Act or sister law like Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act 1946, the Civil Court's jurisdiction is barred. The Apex Court has given deliberate consideration and considered the conflicting decision in the case of Rajasthan SRTC Vs. Krishna Kant13 and in the case of Premier Automobiles Ltd., Vs. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay14 and at paragraph Nos.23, 24 & 25 has held as under:
"23. The question came up for consideration again before a three Judge Bench of this Court in Krishna Kant, wherein, inter alia, it was held: (SCC p.92, para 29) "29. Now let us examine the facts of the appeals before us in the light of the principles adumbrated Premier Automobiles. The first thing to be noticed is the basis upon which the plaintiffs-respondents have claimed the several reliefs in the suit. The basis is the violation of 13 (1995) 5 SCC 75 14 (1976) 1 SCC 496
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14585 RSA No. 227 of 2007 the certified Standing Orders in force in the appellant-establishment. The basis is not the violation of any terms of contract of service entered into between the parties governed by the law of contract. At the same time, it must be said, no right or obligation created by the Industrial Disputes Act is sought to be enforced in the suit. Yet another circumstance is that the Standing Orders Act does not itself provide any forum for the enforcement of rights and liabilities created by the Standing Orders. The question that arises is whether such a suit falls under Principle No. 3 of Premier Automobiles or under Principle No. 2? We are of the opinion that it falls under Principle No. 3. The words "under the Act" in Principle No. 3 must, in our considered opinion, be understood as referring not only to Industrial Disputes Act but also to all sister enactments -- [like Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act] which do not provide a special forum of their own for enforcement of the rights and liabilities created by them. Thus a dispute involving the enforcement of the rights and liabilities created by the certified Standing Orders has necessarily got to be adjudicated only in the forums created by the Industrial Disputes Act provided, of course,
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14585 RSA No. 227 of 2007 that such a dispute amounts to an industrial dispute within the meaning of Sections 2(k) and 2-A of Industrial Disputes Act or such enactment says that such dispute shall be either treated as an industrial dispute or shall be adjudicated by any of the forums created by the Industrial Disputes Act. The civil courts have no jurisdiction to entertain such suits. In other words, a dispute arising between the employer and the workman/workmen under, or for the enforcement of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders is an industrial dispute, if it satisfies the requirements of Section 2(k) and/or Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and must be adjudicated in the forums created by the Industrial Disputes Act alone. This would be so, even if the dispute raised or relief claimed is based partly upon certified Standing Orders and partly on general law of contract."
[emphasis supplied]
24. It was, however, noticed: (Krishna Kant case, pp.93-94, para 33) "33. Coming to the order dated 18-10- 1989 in SLP (C) No. 9386 of 1988 made by a Bench of two learned Judges, the important fact to be noticed is that in that suit, no
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14585 RSA No. 227 of 2007 allegation of violation of the certified Standing Orders was made. The only basis of the suit was violation of principles of natural justice. It was, therefore, held that it was governed by Principle No. 2 in Premier Automobiles. In this sense, this order cannot be said to lay down a proposition contrary to the one in Jitendra Nath Biswas. We may also refer to a decision of this Court rendered by Untwalia, J., on behalf of a Bench comprising himself and A.P. Sen, J., in Sitaram Kashiram Konda v. Pigment Cakes and Chemicals Mfg. Co. That was a case arising from a suit instituted by the workman for a declaration that termination of his service is illegal and for reinstatement. In the alternative, he claimed compensation for wrongful termination. The jurisdiction of the civil court was sustained by this Court on the ground that he has made out a case for awarding compensation though the civil court could not decree reinstatement. Though the report does not indicate the basis put forward by the workman-plaintiff therein, the court found on an examination of all the facts and circumstances of the case that "it is not quite correct to say that the suit filed by the appellant is not maintainable at all in a civil court". Obviously it was a case where the
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14585 RSA No. 227 of 2007 dispute related to enforcement of rights flowing from general law of contract and not from certified Standing Orders. This decision cannot also be read as laying down a different proposition from Premier Automobiles."
25. The principles flowing from the discussions in the said decisions were summarized thus: (Krishna Kant case, pp. 94-95, para 35) "35. We may now summarise the principles flowing from the above discussion:
(1) Where the 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.
(2) Where, however, the dispute involves recognition, observance or enforcement of any of the rights or obligations created by the Industrial Disputes Act, the only remedy is to approach the forums created by the said Act.
(3) Similarly, where the dispute involves the recognition, observance or enforcement of
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14585 RSA No. 227 of 2007 rights and obligations created by enactments like Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 -- which can be called "sister enactments" to Industrial Disputes Act -- and which do not provide a forum for resolution of such disputes, the only remedy shall be to approach the forums created by the Industrial Disputes Act provided they constitute industrial disputes within the meaning of Section 2(k) and Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes Act or where such enactment says that such dispute shall be either treated as an industrial dispute or says that it shall be adjudicated by any of the forums created by the Industrial Disputes Act. Otherwise, recourse to civil court is open.
(4) It is not correct to say that the remedies provided by the Industrial Disputes Act are not equally effective for the reason that access to the forum depends upon a reference being made by the appropriate Government. The power to make a reference conferred upon the Government is to be exercised to effectuate the object of the enactment and hence not unguided. The rule is to make a reference unless, of course, the dispute raised is a totally frivolous one ex facie. The power
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14585 RSA No. 227 of 2007 conferred is the power to refer and not the power to decide, though it may be that the Government is entitled to examine whether the dispute is ex facie frivolous, not meriting an adjudication.
(5) Consistent with the policy of law aforesaid, we commend to Parliament and the State Legislatures to make a provision enabling a workman to approach the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal directly -- i.e., without the requirement of a reference by the Government -- in case of industrial disputes covered by Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. This would go a long way in removing the misgivings with respect to the effectiveness of the remedies provided by the Industrial Disputes Act.
(6) The certified Standing Orders framed under and in accordance with the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 are statutorily imposed conditions of service and are binding both upon the employers and employees, though they do not amount to "statutory provisions". Any violation of these Standing Orders entitles an employee to appropriate relief either before the forums created by the Industrial Disputes Act or the
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14585 RSA No. 227 of 2007 civil court where recourse to civil court is open according to the principles indicated herein.
(7) The policy of law emerging
from Industrial Disputes Act and its sister
enactments is to provide an alternative
dispute-resolution mechanism to the workmen, a mechanism which is speedy, inexpensive, informal and unencumbered by the plethora of procedural laws and appeals upon appeals and revisions applicable to civil courts. Indeed, the powers of the courts and tribunals under the Industrial Disputes Act are far more extensive in the sense that they can grant such relief as they think appropriate in the circumstances for putting an end to an industrial dispute."
15. The law is settled that if infringement of the standing order or other provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are alleged, the Civil Court's jurisdiction may be held to be barred, but if the suit is based on violation of principles of common law or constitutional provisions or on other grounds, the Civil Court's jurisdiction may not be barred. The plaintiff has failed to establish that there was any violation of the principles of natural justice for the Civil
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14585 RSA No. 227 of 2007 Court to have the jurisdiction. In the present circumstances, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is totally barred and there is no violation of principles of natural justice, as contended by the plaintiff-respondent herein. The decisions placed by learned counsel for the respondent, this Court has absolutely no quarrel that when principles of natural justice are violated, the Civil Court has jurisdiction and not otherwise.
16. The Apex Court in the case of Deen Dayal Sharma, stated supra at paragraph Nos.15 & 16, has held as under:
"15. The legal position that Standing Order have no statutory force and are not in the nature of delegated/subordinate legislation is clearly stated by this Court in krishna Kant2 . In that case (Krishna Kant2), this Court while summarising the legal principles in para 35(6) stated that the certified standing Orders framed under and in accordance with the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 are statutorily imposed conditions of service and are binding both upon the employers and employees, though they do not amount to "statutory provisions" and any violation of these Standing Orders entitled an employee to appropriate relief either before the forum created by the Industrial Disputes Act or the
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14585 RSA No. 227 of 2007 civil court where recourse to civil court is open according to the principles indicated therein.
16. In Bal Mukund Bairwa (2)6 , in para 37 of the Report, the position has been explained that if the infringement of the Standing Orders is alleged, the civil court's jurisdiction may be held to be barred but if the suit is based on the violation of principles of common law or constitutional provisions or on other grounds, the civil court's jurisdiction may not be held to be barred. In our opinion, the nature of right sought to be enforced is decisive in determining whether the jurisdiction of civil court is excluded or not."
17. The decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Deen Dayal Sharma and Bal Mukund Bairawa stated supra, on similar terms where the Apex Court held that under what circumstances, the Civil Court's jurisdiction is barred. In the instant case, the plaintiff was served with the show cause notice by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority confirmed the charges leveled against the plaintiff and thus, the question of reissuance of show cause notice was not contemplated, as contended by the plaintiff - respondent and in the said circumstances, the only remedy available to the plaintiff - respondent was to raise industrial dispute and not before the Civil Court. In
- 25 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14585 RSA No. 227 of 2007 the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, in light of the separate mechanism provided and accordingly, the substantial question of law framed by this Court is answered in favour of the appellant and this Court pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The regular second appeal is hereby allowed.
(ii) The judgment and decree of the Courts below are hereby set aside holding that the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed and the only remedy available is by raising an industrial dispute and not a civil suit and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit filed by the plaintiff - respondent.
Sd/-
JUDGE VNP & EM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40