General Secretary, Samrath ... vs K.P. Bansal And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 212 Del

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, C.J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order dated 18th March, 1998 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 370/95, whereby and whereunder, an application filed by the respondent herein, under Section 14 of the Limitation Act was allowed.

2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.

3. The said respondent was an employee of the petitioner. He allegedly resigned from services. However, he filed an application before the Delhi School Tribunal, inter alia, on the ground that such resignation had been forcibly obtained from him. The said appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal by an order dated 3rd September, 1991 on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. The respondent herein filed a writ petition before this Court which was marked as CWP No. 2460/92. By an order dated 25th January, 1995 the said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that it involved disputed questions of facts. Thereafter the afore-mentioned suit was filed.

4. Mr. Taneja, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the learned Court below in passing the impugned order acted illegally and without jurisdiction, in so far as it failed to record a finding of fact to the effect that the respondent had been pursuing his remedy bona fide. Drawing this Court's attention to the order of the learned Court below, it was contended that only the ingredients of Section 14 of the Limitation Act had been quoted, without holding, as to whether the said respondent has fulfillled the conditions thereof or not. In this case the Court below has exercised its discretion, apart from the fact that the writ petition must have been filed upon obtaining a legal opinion therefore, prima facie, such writ petition might have been maintainable. It is now well known that in the event an employee can establish that his/her resignation has been obtained forcibly the same would amount to termination of service. If obtaining a resignation forcibly amounted to termination of service, it could be held that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to entertain the application. As noticed hereinbefore this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had not dismissed the writ petition on its merits but refused to exercise its jurisdiction on the ground that the writ petition involved disputed questions of facts.

5. In view of the observations made by this Court in the said writ petition the respondent had to file the suit. It, therefore, cannot be said that he had not been pursuing his remedy in good faith in other Forums. It is, therefore, not a case where it may be contended that this Court had no jurisdiction at all and thus the respondent had been pursuing a remedy before wrong a Forum. Furthermore in a case of this nature, the proviso (b) appended to Section 115 would be resorted to as this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order, even if it is allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the petitioner.

6. For the reasons afore-mentioned, there is no merit in the Civil Revision Petition, which is dismissed. However, observations made herein may not be treated to be a determination of nay of the issues involved in afore-mentioned suit.