BANARSI DASS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (January 30, 1978) - -This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the order of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Rohtak, dated March 19, 1977.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the plaintiff was in a permanent Government service and was working as a conductor in the Transport Department of Haryana State. He was dismissed from service by the General Manger, Haryana Roadways, Rohtak, vide order dated December 14, 1973. He challenged the order of dismissal on the ground that it was illegal, void and ineffective as reasonable opportunity was not given to him to defend himself. He also pleaded that the order of dismissal was violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE only question that arises for decision in this appeal is whether the civil court had jurisdiction to try this suit or not. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff instituted the suit challenging his dismissal on the ground that he was not given reasonable opportunity to defend himself and the order of the dismissing authority was consequently violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. According to the learned Counsel if there is violation of constitutional provision, the normal remedy of a citizen is by way of suit in a civil court. He, in support of his argument, has referred to Bharat Kala Bhandar Ltd. (Private) v. Municipal Committee, Dhamagaon , AIR1966 SC 249 , (1967 )69 BOMLR69 , [1966 ]59 ITR73 (SC ), [1965 ]3 SCR499 Ballabhdas Mathurdas Lakshmi v. Municipal Committee, Malkpur ,, AIR1970 SC 1002 , (1970 )2 SCC267 , The Municipal Corporation, lndore v. Niyamatulla A. I. R. 1971 S. C. 97. He has further argued that even if remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act was also available to the appellant, it was in his discretion either to file a civil suit or to go to the forum provided under the Industrial Disputes Act. He has relied upon Premier Automobiles v. Kamalakar Shantaram Wadke 1975 -II L. L. J. 445 : ,, AIR1975 SC 2238 , [1975 (31 )FLR195 ], 1975 Lablc1651 , (1975 )II LLJ445 SC , (1976 )1 SCC496 , [1976 ]1 SCR427 , to buttress his arguments. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that if a remedy to the plaintiff was available under the Industrial Disputes Act, he had no right to institute the present suit. He has mainly placed reliance on my judgment in State of Punjab v. Dewarka Dass (1976) P. L. R. 92.