Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)
(O&M;) State Of Punjab And Others vs Balwat Singh on 27 August, 2014 cites

The Ambala Central Co-Operative Bank ... vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 12 June, 1990

"The trial court did not frame issue regarding jurisdiction of the civil court, but suo moto decided that plaintiff had availed of alternate remedy. Two remedies were available to the plaintiff either to approach the civil court or the labour court, but the reference to Civil Court was declined. So, it cannot be said that the rights of the plaintiff have been finally adjudicated through the reference to the Labour Commissioner who declined to refer the dispute of the plaintiff to the labour Court. In a similar case, the plaintiff filed a suit and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed in default and not on merits. Our own Hon'ble High Court has held that the rights of the plaintiff were not decided by the civil court on merits and as such the alternate remedy available to the plaintiff has not been exhausted and the alternate remedy available to the plaintiff to approach the Labour Court remains intact. My view in this respect are supported by the decision of our own Hon'ble High Court reported as 1985(2) S.L.J 306-308, (Ferozzepur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. V. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Bhatinda and another). Hence, the dispute raised by the plaintiff was not referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Commissioner and so it cannot be said that the rights of the plaintiff were decided on merits by the Labour Court as the reference was declined to the Labour Court. As the rights of the plaintiff were not decided on merits, the alternate remedy available to the plaintiff remained intact. The view of the trial court that the dispute of the plaintiff was referred to the Labour Commissioner and hence the civil court has no jurisdiction is contrary to law as laid down by our own Hon'ble High Court and is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is held that the civil court has jurisdiction to try the suit. The findings of the trial court that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the dispute raised by the plaintiff was referred to the Labour Commissioner who declined to refer the dispute to the Labour Court. I have gone through the letters addressed by the Labour Commissioner to the plaintiff Ex.P5 dated RAJEEV THAKRAL 2014.09.01 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh RSA No.134 of 1991 -9- 11.7.1984 and Ex.P8 dated 9.4.1984 whereby the Labour Commissioner declined to refer the dispute of the plaintiff to the labour court. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff appellant contended that the dispute of the plaintiff was referred to the Labour Commissioner but the Labour Commissioner declined to refer the dispute raised by the plaintiff to the Labour Court and as such thedispute raised by the plaintiff was not decided on merits. As the rights of the plaintiff were not decided on merits, the civil court had the jurisdiction to try the suit and the approach of the trial court is against law which held that the civil court has no jurisdiction in the matter because the dispute raised by the plaintiff had been referred to the Labour Commissioner.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Rajbir Singh And Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board And ... on 31 January, 2009

It is well settled proposition of law that a workman raising a dispute cannot claim a reference u/s 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, as a matter of right and proviso to section 10 cannot be considered to be providing an alternative remedy and my views in this respect receive support from a ruling of Division Bench of our own Hon'ble High Court reported as 1983(1) S.L.R. Page 38 (Rajbir Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others). The dispute raised by the plaintiff was not referred to the Labour Court and as such it could not be said that to the effect that the civil court has no jurisdiction are set aside. The trial court has held that the orders dated 21.11.1981 and 25.10.1982 are null and void and the suit is not barred by limitation because no limitation is provided to challenge an illegal and void order and therefore I agree with the findings of the trial court on issues No.1 and 2."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 39 - Full Document

Narayanan Rajendran And Anr vs Lekshmy Sarojini And Ors on 12 February, 2009

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any jurisdictional error or patent illegality apparent on the record of the case in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge. She also failed to put into service any substantive argument so as to convince this Court to take a different view than the one RAJEEV THAKRAL 2014.09.01 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh RSA No.134 of 1991 -10- taken by the learned first appellate court. Further, no question of law much less substantial question of law has been found involved in the present case, which is sine quo non for interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naryanan Rajendran and another v. Lekshmy Sarojini and others; 2009(2) RCR (Civil) 286.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 509 - D Bhandari - Full Document
1