SARAWAGI CHEMICAL AGENCY Vs. BHOLA JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, a management of the Proprietorial Firm owned by M/s Associate Entrade Limited has challenged the order dated 10.01.2013 passed by the learned Munsiff No.3, Guwahati, in Tile Suit No. 162 of 2012 holding that a suit instituted by the opposite party workman challenging his discharge from service is maintainable under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE opposite party Bhola Jha instituted Title Suit No. 162 of 2012 in the Court of learned Munisff No.3 at Guwahati stating that he joined service of the defendants Management as a driver in the year 1980 on temporary basis. He continued serving without any break whereupon his services were made permanent with effect from 01.04.1999. But on 02.01.2012 the Authorised Official of the management served a notice of discharge on him by paying Rs.1,000/ - as salary. The plaintiff tried to pursue his employers but all his efforts were in vain. Having served a pleaders' notice on management on 11.01.2012 the plaintiff sought for revocation of his discharge, however, to no avail. Ultimately, the plaintiff became compelled to institute the suit praying for reinstatement in service by setting aside the discharge procedure adopted vide notice dated 02.01.2012 and 21.02.2012. The management filed a written statement, inter alia, contending that the suit is not maintainable. The averments of facts were also disputed. Thereafter, by an application dated 10.07.2012, the petitioner herein made a prayer for hearing on preliminary issue on the point of maintainability of the suit. The plaintiff submitted objection thereto and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court passed order on 10.01.2013 holding that the suit was maintainable. It is this order which has been challenged in the revision petition.

(3.) THIS revision petition came up for hearing on 26.02.2014 when learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the case of Chandrakanta Tukaram Nikam vs. Municipal Corporation of Ahemadabad reported in (2002) SCC 542. This judgment was delivered by a Bench of three Hon'ble judges. Speaking through Patnaik, J, it held that the suit of this nature is impliedly barred by virtue provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, because the Act provides a forum to adjudicate such dispute. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite party places reliance on the case of Rajasthan SRTC and Others vs. Mohar Singh (AIR 2008 SC 2553) which without noticing former judgment passed by three Hon'ble judges of Supreme Court held that a suit of similar nature is maintainable. By order dated 26.02.2014, therefore, both the learned Senior Counsel were given time to apprise this Court as to the position of law in a situation like the one where there are divergent views of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on one issue. Accordingly, the matter came up for hearing again on 10.04.2014, on which date the learned counsel for the opposite party brought yet another judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Rajasthan SRTC vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa reported in (2009) 4 SCC 299. This judgment was passed after considering the earlier judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan SRTC vs. Mohar Sing (AIR 2008 SC 2553). In this case, another three judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the jurisdiction of Civil Court vis -à -vis Labour Court in employer and employee dispute and held that the Civil Suit is maintainable.