RSRTC v. Deen Dayal Sharma

CASE NOTE
AMITHAB SANKAR
1477
SEMESTER 5
RSRTC v. Deen Dayal Sharma
Coram: R.V. Raveendran, R.M. Lodha
Citation: AIR 2010 SC 2662
The respondent was a conductor in the State Road Transport Corporation. Three months later,
when the respondent was on duty, there was inspection and 6 passengers were found
travelling without tickets. The respondent was dismissed from the post. His departmental
appeal against the order of dismissal was turned down and his subsequent review before the
reviewing authority was also dismissed. Then he filed a civil suit before the munsiff praying
that the dismissal was unlawful, illegal, void and ineffective being contrary to the Standing
Orders as no departmental enquiry was held and he be held to be entitled to all benefits as if
he continued in service. The appellants challenged the jurisdiction of civil court orally and
submitted that the dispute being an industrial dispute, it can only be resolved by the Industrial
Tribunal. The court overruled the objection raised by the appellants about the jurisdiction of
civil court declared the order of dismissal illegal and ordered reinstatement of respondent and
other financial benefits to him. The district court and the high court turned down the appeal
of the appellants and subsequently, it was presented before the Supreme Court of India. The
supreme court looked into several of its previous decisions in coming to a conclusion.
In The Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay and Others, if
the industrial dispute relates to the enforcement of a right or an obligation created under the
Act, then the only remedy available to the suitor is to get an adjudication under the Act.
Supreme Court pointed out this and stated that Cases of industrial disputes by and large,
almost invariably, are bound to be covered by the principle stated above. In the case of
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another v. Krishna Kant and Others, the
court held that 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. The Supreme Court by referring this case
stated that where the dispute involves the recognition, observance or enforcement of rights
and obligations created by enactments like Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,
1946 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. In Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corpn. and Others v. Zakir Hussain, the court held that While dealing with the
question of jurisdiction of civil court in the matters of industrial dispute, the respondent ought
to have approached the remedies provided under the Industrial Disputes Act. He has
miserably failed to do so but approached the civil court, which on the facts and circumstances
of the case has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit." A three Judge Bench of this Court
in the case of Rajasthan SRTC and Others v. Khadarmal, again considered the question
regarding jurisdiction of civil court in the matter of termination of service of a probationer
and held that the civil court had no jurisdiction, the decrees which were passed have no force
of law. They are accordingly set aside. In our view, there can be no direction to reinstate or to
continue reinstatement.
The Supreme Court also stated that if an employee intends to enforce his constitutional rights
or a right under a statutory regulation, the civil court will have the necessary jurisdiction to
try a suit. If, however, he claims his right and corresponding obligations only in terms of the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act or the sister laws so called, the civil court will have
none. In this view of the matter, in (2007) 14 SCC 41 our considered opinion, it would not be
correct to contend that only because the employee concerned is also a workman within the
meaning of the provisions of the 1947 Act or the conditions of his service are otherwise
governed by the Standing Orders certified under the 1946 Act, ipso facto the civil court will
have no jurisdiction. The Hon’ble court also stated that if the case involves that violation of
any standing order entities, an employee to appropriate relief either before the forum created
by the Industrial Disputes Act or the civil court where recourse to civil court is open
according to the principles indicated therein. In the instant case, the respondent who hardly
served for three months, has asserted his right that the departmental enquiry as contemplated
under the Standing Orders, ought to have been held before issuing the order of dismissal and
in absence thereof such order was liable to be quashed. Such right, if available, could have
been enforced by the respondent only by raising an industrial dispute and not in the civil suit.
In the circumstances, it has to be held that civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try
the suit filed by the respondent. Thus, the appeal was allowed and impugned order of the
High Court and judgements of the courts below were set aside.

RSRTC v. Deen Dayal Sharma

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RSRTC v. Deen Dayal Sharma

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RSRTC v. Deen Dayal Sharma

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE NOTE

RSRTC v. Deen Dayal Sharma

Coram: R.V. Raveendran, R.M. Lodha

Citation: AIR 2010 SC 2662

You might also like