2005 (10) TMI 604 - SC - Indian Laws

Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to set aside termination orders; State Govt to make reference under Section 10

R.S.R.T.C. & Anr. Versus Ugma Ram Choudhry

The Supreme Court held that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a suit for setting aside termination orders, citing precedents. The Court ... - Issues:1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain suit for setting aside termination and consequential declarations.2. Application of principles enunciated in previous judgments to pending matters.3. Request for time to obtain orders from Industrial Court or Labour Court.4. Direction to State Government for making a reference under Section 10.5. Maintenance of status quo and application for interim relief.6. Clarification on payment of back-wages.7. Clarification on the industry status of the Appellants.Analysis:1. The main issue in the judgment was the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit for setting aside an order of termination and consequential declarations. The Supreme Court referred to previous decisions, including Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Kant and Others, where it was established that a Civil Court has no jurisdiction in such matters. Therefore, the orders passed by the Civil Court were deemed without jurisdiction and set aside.2. The application of principles enunciated in previous judgments to pending matters was also discussed. The Court considered the submission that the suit was filed and the decree passed before the relevant judgment. However, the Court held that once it is established that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction, the consequence must follow, as reiterated in subsequent judgments.3. A request was made for time to obtain orders from the Industrial Court or Labour Court. The Court directed the State Government to make a reference under Section 10 within three months, considering the length of employment of the Respondents. The Respondent was granted liberty to apply for interim relief before the Court to which the reference is made.4. The Court clarified that if any back-wages had been paid, they shall not be recovered. However, if not paid, there would be no obligation to pay them now. Additionally, the Appellants were prohibited from denying their status as an industry before the appropriate Court.5. Finally, the Appeals were disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. The judgment provided detailed analysis and directions on each issue raised, ensuring clarity on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, application of previous judgments, reference to Industrial or Labour Court, and payment of back-wages.