GENERAL MANAGER PUNJAB ROADWAYS Vs. SH DHARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed challenging the award of the presiding officer, Labour Court, Amritsar, dated April 5, 1994. Respondent No. 1 was employed as Conductor in the Punjab Roadways in the year 1970. It appears that sometime in 1979, the bus in which he was conductor was checked by the Inspector. It was found that Conductor-respondent No. 1 had not issued the tickets to three passengers. On that basis, respondent No. 1 was charge-sheeted and after the enquiry, the services of respondents No. 1 were terminated on October 17,1980. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 filed a suit in a Civil Court for a declaration that the order of termination is illegal but that suit was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief. The same was confirmed by the Appellate Court vide its order dated May 17, 1984. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 served a demand notice. On that, the matter was referred to the Labour Court by the State Government for adjudication. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 put in service of ten years and he was found guilty of not issuing three tickets because of the rush and, therefore, the punishment of removal from service was not warranted and accordingly set aside the order of termination and imposed stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the petitioner, namely, Punjab Roadways, has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the Labour court.

(3.) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is liable to be rejected straightaway. The principles of res judicata are embodied in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure says that the decision of a Court will be binding in a subsequent suit/proceeding if the Civil Court is competent to try the latter suit or proceeding initiated subsequently. There cannot be any dispute that the civil court has no jurisdiction to decide an industrial dispute. There cannot be any doubt that the dispute between the workman and the management in regard to the order of termination comes within the definition of an industrial dispute. Therefore the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded to try such a suit and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant a declaration that the order of termination is bad as the dispute relates to an industrial dispute. Therefore, I am of the opinion that decree and judgment of the Civil Court are not binding on the Labour Court and the same does not operate as res judicata