Civil court jurisdiction barred in termination disputes; reinstatement and consequential reliefs could not be granted once industrial law applied.

Civil court jurisdiction was held unavailable for a suit challenging termination and seeking reinstatement or other consequential reliefs, because the claims fell within the industrial law framework. Once jurisdiction was absent, any decree or order passed by the civil court could not survive and had to be set aside. The Court rejected reliance on the earlier observation in Krishna Kant regarding pending matters, holding that later decisions had made clear that the consequence of want of jurisdiction must follow.

---

---

Issues: Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for setting aside the termination order and granting consequential reliefs.

Analysis: The suit sought reliefs that fell within the industrial law framework. The Court held that the question of civil court jurisdiction had already been settled and that, once such jurisdiction was absent, any decree or order passed by the civil court could not survive. The Court also rejected reliance on the earlier observation in Krishna Kant regarding pending matters, as the later decisions made it clear that the consequence of want of jurisdiction must follow.

Conclusion: The civil court had no jurisdiction to grant reinstatement or consequential reliefs, and the impugned orders were set aside.

---