2021 (10) TMI 478 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Jurisdiction Limits under Industrial Disputes Act

MILKHI RAM Versus HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

MILKHI RAM Versus HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - TMI Issues involved:Jurisdiction of civil court in a suit based on the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Whether plaintiff completed 240 days of uninterrupted service; Maintainability of the decree in favor of the plaintiff.Analysis:Issue 1: Jurisdiction of civil court in a suit based on the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947The civil court had initially decreed in favor of the plaintiff, ordering reinstatement and back wages. However, the High Court, relying on precedents, held that civil courts lack inherent jurisdiction to entertain suits based on the ID Act. The High Court emphasized that a decree passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and can be challenged at any stage, even during execution proceedings. The High Court's decision was based on established legal principles and judgments, ultimately setting aside the decree in favor of the plaintiff.Issue 2: Whether plaintiff completed 240 days of uninterrupted serviceThe plaintiff claimed to have worked for 2778 days and fulfilled the requirement of 240 days of continuous service for regularization. The civil court had ruled in favor of the plaintiff, citing provisions of the ID Act. The appellate court also upheld this decision, rejecting the jurisdictional objection raised by the Board. However, the High Court's subsequent ruling on jurisdiction rendered the decree in favor of the plaintiff a nullity, emphasizing that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate claims arising from the ID Act.Issue 3: Maintainability of the decree in favor of the plaintiffThe plaintiff's claim was based on the provisions of the ID Act, leading to a jurisdictional objection raised by the employer. While the lower courts initially rejected this objection, the High Court overturned their decision, declaring the decree as a nullity due to lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that civil courts do not have jurisdiction to entertain suits based on the ID Act. Despite dismissing the appeal, the Court ordered that the arrear sum paid to the terminated employee pursuant to the decree should not be recovered, considering the hardship faced by the employee.In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit based on the ID Act. The Court emphasized the principle that a decree passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and ordered that the arrear sum paid to the terminated employee should not be recovered, considering the employee's hardship.