Cement Corporation Of India Ltd. vs S.K. Tagi
1997 Latest Caselaw 286 Del

Citation : 1997 Latest Caselaw 286 Del
Judgement Date : 13 March, 1997

Delhi High Court

Cement Corporation Of India Ltd. vs S.K. Tagi on 13 March, 1997

Equivalent citations: 1997 IIIAD Delhi 690, 66 (1997) DLT 772

Author: R Lahoti

Bench: R Lahoti

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.

(1) Arrival of the Counsel for the respondent was awaited upto 1130 p.m. as it was informed by the respondent present in Person that his Counsel being busy before one of the Subordinate Courts would be coming by 12 noon. As the Counsel for the respondent has not turned up so far. Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent present in Person are heard finally.

(2) Revision is disposed of in terms of the following order : The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.8.96 whereby its application under Order 14 Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code seeking deleting of Issue No. 2 has been rejected.

(3) It appears that the defendant-respondent was in the employment of the petitioner-plaintiff. The employment has been terminated. Termination has been challenged by the respondent before the Industrial Court and that Court is ceased of the issue whether the services of defendant-respondent were terminated unlawfully or not. The plaintiff-petitioner has filed this suit before the Civil Court for recovery of house building advance on the ground that the employment of the respondent having come to an end the plaintiff was entitled to recovery of the house building advance in accordance with the terms of the advance.

(4) One of the pleas raised in the written statement is that the defendant's services were unlawfully terminated. That plea forms subject matter of Issue No. 2. It is admitted case of both the parties that the respondent has initiated proceedings disputing the legality of termination before the Industrial Court which is a competent Forum having exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the issue. That being so the same issue could not have been framed and it cannot be adjudicated before the Civil Court. The Trial Court was not therefore right in framing Issue No. 2 and in refusing to delete the issue when a specific prayer to that effect was made. For the foregoing reasons the revision is allowed. Issue No. 2 is directed to be deleted. The Court shall now proceed with the hearing of the suit in accordance with law. The revision is disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs.