Civil court jurisdiction in service disputes survives where dismissal breaches natural justice or mandatory constitutional and statutory requirements.

Section 9 CPC confers broad civil court jurisdiction, and exclusion is not readily inferred. Civil courts remain competent where an employee challenges dismissal on the basis of common law rights, breach of natural justice, or violation of mandatory constitutional or statutory requirements, even if industrial remedies may also exist. The exclusion principle applies more clearly where both the right and the remedy are created exclusively by the Industrial Disputes Act or similar enactments. As a statutory corporation is bound by Article 14, natural justice, and binding service rules, the termination was treated as illegal and the employee's civil suit was maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging dismissal from service of an employee of a statutory corporation, and whether relief could be granted where the termination was alleged to violate natural justice and mandatory constitutional or statutory requirements.

Analysis: Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 confers wide civil jurisdiction unless expressly or impliedly barred. The bar is not to be readily inferred. Where the dispute arises from a common law right, or from breach of constitutional guarantees or mandatory statutory rules, civil court jurisdiction is not excluded merely because industrial remedies may also be available. The exclusion principle applies more clearly where the right and the remedy are both created by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or sister enactments. A statutory corporation, being a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, must comply with Article 14 of the Constitution of India, natural justice, and binding statutory rules. On the facts, the termination was found illegal for breach of natural justice, and the civil courts were competent to grant appropriate relief.

Conclusion: The civil court had jurisdiction and the challenge to the dismissal was maintainable; the appeal failed and the decree in favour of the employee was sustained.

Final Conclusion: Civil court jurisdiction is not barred where the employee asserts common law or constitutional rights or violation of mandatory statutory requirements, even in the setting of service discipline of a statutory corporation.

Ratio Decidendi: Exclusion of civil court jurisdiction is not readily inferred; it is barred only where the statute creating the right also provides the exclusive remedy, whereas disputes based on common law, constitutional rights, or mandatory statutory obligations remain cognizable by civil courts.

---