GANESHAN Vs. MGMT OF BHARATH GOLD MINES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant having suffered an adverse order in the hands of learned single Judge, under writ jurisdiction, has preferred this intra-Court appeal.

(2.) THE learned single Judge agreed with the view taken by the Central Industrial tribunal as per its award dated December 15, 1986 (Ex. D) that the reference made to it was untenable. There is no dispute about the facts relevant for answering the questions raised. The petitioner was employed with the respondent Bharath Gold Mines Limited. On a charge of theft he was dismissed from service on January 10, 1981. This order of dismissal was assailed by the appellant by filing a civil suit in O. S. No. 215 of 1981 on the file of the munsiff at K. G. F. On contest, the suit was dismissed on December 18, 1984. Against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the appellant preferred an appeal being R. A. No. 9 of 1985. But, subsequently, he flied an application under Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC seeking permission to withdraw the appeal. The same was granted by an order dated March 10, 1987, as per Annexure-E. Subsequently thereto the appellant raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the Government to Central government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour court, Bangalore under its order dated december 8, 1988, for adjudication by the tribunal. The Tribunal took the view that since with the withdrawal of the regular appeal the judgment passed in the civil suit became final, no reference could have been made for adjudication and as such they rejected the reference. Then a writ petition was filed before this Court in which the impugned order came to be passed by the learned single Judge.

(3.) MR. Subba Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Nath Biswas v. Empire of India and Ceylone Tea Company and another, AIR 1990 SC 255 : 1989 (3) SCC 582 : 1989-II-LLJ-572 holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suits pertaining to the industrial disputes falling within the ambit of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the judgment rendered against the appellant in the suit filed by him was a nullity in the eye of law and, therefore, that could not have been made a ground for rejecting the reference made at the instance of the appellant.