NAHAN FOUNDRY LTD Vs. RAMESHWAR DASS VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in a suit filed in the Court of Sub-Judge, Nahan, for a declaration to the effect that the order terminating the services of the respondent was wrong, ultra vires, null and void and not binding on the respondent and that he be deemed, therefore, to have continued in the service of the petitioners. The suit was instituted on March 31, 1987, that is, after the coming into force of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The petitioners raised a preliminary objection that in view of the enforcement of the Act as well as the issue of a notification under sub-section (2) of Sec. 15 thereof, the Civil Court was not empowered to entertain and try the suit and that the jurisdiction in that regard vested in the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). The trial Court raised an issue as to jurisdiction and tried the same as a preliminary issue. The decision on the preliminary issue having gone against the petitioners, they have moved this Court by way of the present revision petition.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the Act has been brought into force since before the suit was instituted. It is also not in dispute that a notification under sub-section (2) of Sec. 15 of the Act issued by the State Government held the field at the material time and that it still holds the field. It is further not in dispute that the suit relates to a service matter. These facts were not in dispute even before the trial Court. The submission on behalf of the respondent, however, was that the first petitioner, which is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, does not answer the description of any of the entities mentioned in sub-section (2) of Sec. 15 of the Act inasmuch as it is not a local or other authority nor a corporation or a society controlled or owned by the State Government and that, therefore, the civil Court's jurisdiction is not ousted, notwithstanding the issue of a notification thereunder. The contention of the petitioners on the other hand, was that the first petitioner-company, which is a wholly owned Government Company within the meaning of Sec. 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, is a corporation within the meaning of sub-section (2) of Sec. 15 of the Act and that, therefore, the Civil Court's jurisdiction is ousted since a notification under the said sub-section has been duly issued. The trial Court found that the word "corporation" did not take within its sweep a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and that the jurisdiction to try the suit was not ousted by the enforcement of the Act and the issue of the notification under sub-section (2) of Sec. 14 thereof.

(3.) Sec. 20 of the Civil Procedure Code provides :