KARN VEER AJMANI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth 'the CPC') calling in question the judgment and decree dated 24-6-2006 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. 8-A/2006, by which suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction and recovery of damages has been dismissed by the trial Court holding that the suit is not maintainable being barred under Section 9 of the C.P.C. Brief facts in nutshell, necessary for adjudication of this appeal, are as under:

(2.) Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that though the appellant/plaintiff being an employee is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID Act and the respondents/defendants/State Bank of India is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the ID Act as jurisdiction of the civil court is not barred under Section 9 of the C.P.C. as barred the plaintiff has claimed enforcement of his civil rights on account of harassment done by the defendants/Bank he cannot competently claim under the provisions of the ID Act.

(3.) Per contra, Shri B.D. Guru, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants/State Bank of India, referring to the definition of industrial disputes as defined in Section 2(k) of the ID Act, would submit that all the disputes raised by the appellant/plaintiff is connected with the terms of employment or at least related to the terms and conditions of his employment and, therefore, the said dispute being pure and simple industrial dispute the jurisdiction of the civil Court is expressly barred under Section 9 of the C.P.C. as it is open for the appellant/plaintiff to raise an industrial dispute invoking Section 10 of the ID Act.