RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. GAGAN KUMAR JAIN S/O SHRI POONAM CHAND JAIN, AT PRESENT POSTED AS CONDUCTOR, ANOOP DEPOT, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION. RESIDENT OF RAGDI CHOWK, NEAR BADA UPASRA, BIKANER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all the Civil Second Appeals, identical questions have been raised by the appellants and are directed against the orders dated 29.03.2007, 26.02.1996, 24.11.1998, 01.02.2003 and 01.2.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Additional District Judge No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Additional District Judge No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur and Additional District Judge No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur. In all the appeals, the question posed is as to whether in these cases, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the civil suit or as to whether the nature of dispute being such, it is required to be considered under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Therefore, all these appeals with the consent of counsels are being decided by this common order. The facts of the leading case bearing S.B. Civil Second Appeal NO.597 of 2007 are taken into consideration.

(2.) The brief facts noticed are that the appellant is a Government of Rajasthan undertaking and the respondent-plaintiff was an employee of the Appellants and has preferred a suit for declaration of termination from service as invalid which was decreed by the Court below and the appeal has been dismissed. The following issues were framed which reads as under:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...

(3.) The Trial Court insofar as issue No.1 is concerned, held that there was violation of principles of natural justice as no notice was given to the respondent-plaintiff and accordingly decided the said Issue in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The same was assailed before the Appellate Court in appeal. The Appellate Court also after taking into consideration the facts found and noticed, held that there was violation of principles of natural justice and accordingly dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant herein. Both the Courts held that they (Civil Court) had jurisdiction though there was a serious objection all throughout by the appellants.