KRISHNAN KAKKANATH Vs. K. V. USHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Correspondent of "Chinmaya Vidyalaya" in Balla village of Hosdurg Taluk is the revision petitioner. He is the second defendant in the suit filed by the first respondent, who is a teacher in the nursery section of the school run by "Chinmaya Mission". In the suit, the first respondent, inter alia, prayed for a mandatory injunction to reinstate her in the service of "Chinmaya Vidyalaya'. The suit was filed when her service was terminated by the Management on 21-8-1989. The revision arises from an order passed by the court below on a preliminary issue namely "Whether the court has jurisdiction to try the suit". Without taking evidence, the court below found that it has jurisdiction to try the suit. The correctness and legality of this finding is challenged in this revision.

(2.) Sub-r.(2) of R.2 of O.14 of the Code of Civil Procedure is thus:

(3.) It is necessary to examine whether the question of jurisdiction of the court to try the suit can be decided as a preliminary issue in this case without recording any evidence. In Muthayyan v. Manager, Kadalur Estate ( 1981 KLT 660 ) a question arose before this court whether a school teacher as a 'workman' as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act. In that case the petitioner was a teacher in the primary school in an estate. When he was dismissed from service the Government referred the dispute for adjudication. When the matter came up before the Labour Court, a preliminary objection was raised that the petitioner was not a 'workman'. Upholding the said objection the Labour Court rejected the reference. This court after quashing the award directed the Labour Court to adduce evidence about the functions of the teacher in the school. While analysing the question, Khalid, J. (as he then was) of this court observed thus: