DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. BEHARI PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Civil Judge framed a preliminary issue with regard to jurisdiction of the civil court and dismissed the suit holding that the matter related to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act. However, the view so taken did not find favour with the learned Additional District Judge. He thus accepted the appeal. Dissatisfaction with the order of the Ist Appellate Court has led to this Appeal.

(2.) The facts are not taxing. The respondent who claims to be a regular employee of the Delhi Development Authority has been transferred to the employment of the Municipal, Corporation of Delhi. He says the DDA could not do it because of his service conditions and that, in any case, the order affects adversely his seniority and chances of promotion. Hence, his suit for declaration that he could not be so transferred and for injunction restraining the DDA from implementing the order.

(3.) In response to the suit though the Municipal Corporation preferred to stay away from the proceedings, the DDA filed its written statement contesting the suit on various grounds. However, what needs to be emphasised is that in the pleadings it was no where alleged by either of the contesting parties that the present respondent who was the plaintiff before the trial court was a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also not alleged that DDA was an industry. There was also nothing in the pleadings that the dispute raised by the plaintiff fell within the ambit and scope of an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act or that the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred. It was only at the time of the framing of the issues that it was contended by the learned counsel for the DDA that the DDA being an industry and the plaintiff being a workman, the dispute ought to have gone to the Labour Court. This prompted the learned trial Judge to frame the following preliminary issues: