Sitaram Kashiram Konda v. Pigment Cakes & Chemicals Mfg. Co.

UNTWALIA, J. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit in the Trial Court in the year 1963 alleging certain unjustifiable aud illegal actions on the part of his employer,. the respondent in this appeal. The reliefs claimed in the suit weJCe the following :- "(a) That it may be declared that the defendant haa re­ moved the plaintiff from service illegally and without any reason. (b) That it may be declared that the defendairt failed aud neglected to re-employ th;: plaintiff although the defendant restarted the factory. ( c) That the defendant be ordered to reinstate the plain­ tiff to his former job with due benefits and advan­ tages. ( d) In the alternative the defondant may be ordered to pay to the plaintiff such compensation as to the Hoh'ble Court may deem fit. ( e) For costs of the suit. (f) For such further and other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit." On contest by the respondent, the Trial Court held that the dispute raised by the appellant was in the nature of au industrial dispute and hence the Civil Court had to jurisdiction to try it. The appellant took the matter in appeal before the First Appellate Court. It allowed th·;: appeal and held that the dispute raised was of a civil nature and the case was cognizable by a Civil Court. The respondent filed the serond appeal in the High Court and the High Court has agreed with the view of the Trial Court. It has said that th;: appellant had not claimetl damages by pleading wrongful dismissal and breach of tk contract of his service. The facts pleaded by him all converged to show that the dispute was an industrial dispute cognizable only by an industrial court and not by a Civil Court. The appellant has prese'Jtted his appeal ih this Court by a certificate granted by the High Court. • ' > J ' , ' - s. K. KONDA v. PIGMENT CAKES & CHEMICALS (Untwalia, J.) 127 The Court is obliged to Mr. K. Jayaram for assisting it as Amicus Curiae in this case. Afb~r having appreciated the entire facts and the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it is not quite correct to say that the suit filed by the appellant is not maintainable at all in a Civil Court. The correct position of law is that the main reliefs asked for by him which when granted will amount to specific performance of the contract of service and therefore they cannot b~ granted. There are a number of decisions of this Court to that effect; to wit-Dr. S. B. Dutt v. University of Delhi('), S. R. Tiwari v. District Board Agra & Anr.( 2 ) and Indian Airlines Corporation v. Suhhdeo Rai.( 3 ) Refereuce was also be made in this connection to the decision of this Court in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay and Ors.(') But then rn the alternative, the appellant had also prayed for awarding compensation to him. ~nd reading the plaint as a whole, if can legitimately be culled out that he had made out a case, whether it was right on fact or not, that is a different question, that he was wrongfully dismissed from service. This relief could be gran­ ted by the Civil Court if it found that the plaintiff's case was true. The High Court, in our opinion, is not right in saying that no such case had at all been made out in the plaint. In our opinion, as we have earlier said, re-ading the plaint as a whole, such case can be spelt out. TI1at being so to this limited extent, the matter could be examined by the Civil Court. We accordingly allow the appeal set aside the judgments of the courts below and send back the case to the Trial Court for disposing it of in accordance with law in the light of this judgment. There will be no order as to costs. Since the suit bas become very old, the Trial Court is directed to dispose it of as expeditiously as possible. N.V.K. (1) [1959J s.c.R. 1236 (2) [1964] 3 S.C.R. 55 (3) [1971] Suppl. S.C.R. 510 (4J r 1976] l s.c.R. 427 Appeal allowed.