Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. The question that arises for consideration is not res integra. Recently it had been considered in detail by S.T. Ramalingam, J. in T. Rajaiah v. Southern Roadways Ltd. (1991) 1 L.L.N. 453. The facts are almost similar and there also suits were instituted by workers challenging the orders of transfer. The learned Judge has held that civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain such suits. He agreed with the view taken by Malimath, C.J. in Kerala Rubber and Reclaims, Ltd. v. P.A. Sunny (1989) 1 L.L.N. 676, and held that the question of transfer would fall directly under item 7 of Fifth Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act and the remedy of the aggrieved worker is only to approach the forum created under the Act. In that case also, there was initiation of proceedings under the Act for reference of the dispute to the Tribunal. The learned Judge held that the plaintiffs in that case having elected to initiate a proceeding under the Act, were not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the civil court.

7. Arguments have been advanced at length by learned Counsel for the plaintiff that the view taken by S.T. Ramalingam, J. is erroneous and the right of a worker to question an order of transfer is a common law right and not one created by the Industrial Disputes Act. According to learned Counsel, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Premier Automobiles, Ltd. v. Kamalakar Shantaram Wadke , has not been properly understood.

8. The question of exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts by special enactments has been the subject of discussion in innumerable cases. In view of the importance of the question and the frequent recurrence of the same, the Apex Court discussed the matter in detail in Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh , by a Bench of five Judges. The result was summarised and reduced to seven principles. It is not necessary for this case to repeat them here. Suffice it to refer to principles 1, 2 and 7, which read thus:

25. There can be no doubt whatever that the judgment of ST. Ramalingam, in T. Rajaiah v. Southern Roadways Ltd. (1991) 1 L.L.N. 453, is in accord with the well settled principles of law and I have no reason to differ therefrom. I express my full concurrence with the same.

26. A similar ruling was given by S. Ramalingam, J. in Kumari Estate Workers' Union v. Modaik Easwari Estate, Ponmanai (1991) 2 L.L.J. 500. In that case, the workers, whose services were terminated, filed a suit seeking injunction restraining the management from interfering with their right of doing work. The suit was dismissed for default. An industrial dispute raised by the workmen regarding their non-employment was referred in the meanwhile for adjudication. Before the Labour Court, the management raised a preliminary objection that the reference was not maintainable as the workers had taken the matter to the civil court in the suit. That objection was upheld by the Labour Court and the workers filed a writ petition. Allowing the writ petition, the learned Judge held that the civil court had no jurisdiction whatever to entertain the dispute and the dismissal of the suit for default would have no effect on the reference validly made. The learned Judge has referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Premier Automobiles, Ltd. v. Kamalakar Shantaram Wadke and Jitendra Nath Biswas v. Empire of India and Ceylon Tea Company (1989) 2 L.L.J. 572. The ratio will apply to the present case also as a right created by the Act is sought to be enforced here too.