Rajasthan High Court
R S R T C And Ors vs Gokal Chand on 23 March, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 95/1999
1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Jaipur
Through Managing Director, RSRTC, Jaipur
2. Divisional Engineer, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Ajmer
3. General Manager Planning, RSRTC, Jaipur
4. Chairman, RSRTC, Jaipur
----Appellants
Versus
Gokul Chand S/o Shri Chiranji Lal, Ex. Conductor, Rajasthan
State Road Transport Corporation, Bhilwara Depot, at Present
R/o Kajipura, Kekri, Distt. Ajmer
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepak Goyal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Gupta
Mr. Ankul Gupta
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 16/03/2022
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : March 23rd, 2022
BY THE COURT:
1. Appellant-defendant Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation (hereinafter referred as "RSRTC") has preferred this
second appeal under Section 100 CPC, assailing judgment and
decree dated 16.4.1994 in Appeal No.224/1992 passed by
Additional District Judge, No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur affirming the
judgment and decree dated 6.9.1991 passed by Additional Civil
Judge No.5, Jaipur City, in Civil Suit No.425/1989 whereby while
termination order dated 20-2-1984 of respondent plaintiff
(hereinafter "plaintiff") was declared as illegal, void and violative
to principles of natural justice, he has also been declared entitle
(2 of 6) [CSA-95/1999]
for back wages and monetary benefits from date of termination
i.e. 20.2.1984.
2. The facts of case are that plaintiff was appointed on the post
of Conductor on permanent basis but later on his services were
terminated by defendant RSRTC vide order dated 20.2.1984. The
termination was made on account of remarks against plaintiff that
he was carrying passengers without tickets. Plaintiff preferred an
appeal against termination order to Appellate Authority, who
dismissed the appeal 18-8-1984. The review was filed, which too
dismissed on 8-4-1987. Plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration,
challenging termination order dated 20.2.1984 as also order of
Appellate Authority dated 18-8-1984 and review order dated
8.4.1987, alleging inter alia that his termination is stigmatic and
he has been terminated from service without conducting any
enquiry as also without giving any opportunity of hearing on
alleged charges. Plaintiff prayed for declaring termination order
and order of Appellate Authority as illegal and void and claimed for
his reinstatement with all consequential benefits and monetary
benefits.
3. The RSRTC failed to file written statement, however, opposed
the suit of plaintiff by contending that plaintiff was appointed as
daily rated employee and his services were terminated, after
serving the charge sheet and after affording opportunity of
hearing, due enquiry was conducted before removal of plaintiff.
Other objections as to the suit is barred by limitation and Civil
Court does not have jurisdiction, were also raised.
4. The trial Court settled points of determination and recorded
evidence of both parties. Plaintiff appeared as witness and
(3 of 6) [CSA-95/1999]
produced documents to prove that his termination was illegal and
was passed without conducting enquiry and without giving any
opportunity of hearing, therefore, termination is ex facie illegal
and in violation to principles of natural justice. Defendant
examined Dw.1 Rakesh Kumar and exhibited termination order.
5. The trial Court after appreciation of evidence on record
concluded that the termination of plaintiff from service is not
simpliciter, but because of stigmatic remark. The trial Court
observed that since termination of plaintiff is stigmatic and no
enquiry was conducted, no opportunity of hearing was given, no
principle of natural justice was followed, thus, impugned
termination order is illegal and void. Accordingly, the trial Court
vide judgment dated 6-9-1991 allowed plaintiff's suit declaring the
termination order and order of Appellate Authority as also of
Reviewing Authority as illegal and void. The trial Court directed to
give monetary benefits to plaintiff from the date of filing of suit
i.e. 30-5-1989.
6. Defendants preferred first appeal against judgment and
decree of trial Court dated 6.9.1991, which was decided by
Appellate Court vide judgment dated 16.4.1994 and while
upholding the judgment of the trial court, the plaintiff was held
entitled to get backwages from the date of his termination i.e.
20.2.1984, hence, the RSRTC is in second appeal.
7. Learned counsel for appellant-defendant has argued that
plaintiff was not a permanent employee, but was a daily rated
employee, however, due enquiry was conducted before his
termination. He has argued that suit for declaration filed by
plaintiff on 30.05.1989, assailing termination order dated
(4 of 6) [CSA-95/1999]
20.2.1984 is barred by limitation and the civil court does not have
jurisdiction to entertain the present suit between employer-
employee, which is in nature of Industrial Dispute.
8. This court vide order dated 30-8-2007 framed the substantial
question of law "Whether, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to
entertain, try and decide the suit filed by the plaintiff
respondent?".
9. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused impugned
judgment passed by the trial court as affirmed by the first
appellate court, as also record of the case.
10. As far as nature of termination as simpliciter or stigmatic is
concerned, both Courts have concurrently held on the strength of
oral or documentary evidence that the termination was stigmatic.
The fact finding of two courts below are based on appreciation of
evidence and no perversity has been pointed out in such fact
findings, so as to give rise any question of law much less
substantial question of law.
11. As per record, courts below have counted the limitation for
filing suit for declaration from the last order of Reviewing
Authority, affirming the termination order. The issue of limitation
as to whether it should be counted from the date of termination
order or from the date of last order of Appellate or Reviewing
Authority has been decided by coordinate bench of this Court in
Ram Ratan Sharma Vs. R.S.R.T.C. in S.B. CSA No.245/1996
decided on 1.3.1997, which has been followed in subsequent
case of Mali Ram Banjara Vs. Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation, in S.B. CSA No.204/1999 decided on
19.03.2013. In view of proposition of law laid down therein it is
(5 of 6) [CSA-95/1999]
no more res integra that limitation can be and should be counted
from the last order, including orders of Appellate/ Reviewing
Authority. Therefore, the substantial question of law relating to
limitation deserves to be answered in negative in view of aforesaid
two judgments.
12. As far as the question of law that civil court has jurisdiction
to entertain the suit is concerned, such issue has been considered
and decided by the Apex Court in Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa [(2009)4 SCC
299] and it has been held that where enquiry has been conducted
in violation of principles of natural justice, there would be violation
of statutory Regulations as also right of equality as contained in
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In such a situation a civil
suit will be maintainable for the purpose of declaration that
termination of service was illegal and consequences flowing
therefrom. Therefore, the question of law relating to
maintainability of suit before the Civil Court is answered in
negative.
13. Similarly the question of law relating to entitlement of
plaintiff for backwages from the date of his termination is also
valid in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Bal
Mukund Bairwa (supra). In the opinion of this court, the first
appellate court has not committed any illegality or jurisdictional
error in awarding backwages to plaintiff from the date of his
termination order and decreeing plaintiff's suit as a whole. Thus,
this question of law is also answered in negative.
14. There is no substance in question of law as raised by
defendant. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in case of Kondiba
(6 of 6) [CSA-95/1999]
Dagadun Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar [(1999)3 SCC
722] that question of law which has already been decided by a
larger Bench of the High Court concerned, or by the Privy Council,
or by the Federal Court or by the Supreme Court, mere wrong
application on facts of a particular case does not create another
substantial question of law. In such view of the matter there is no
substantial question of law in instant matter.
15. In case of Umerkhan Vs. Bismillabi [(2011)9 SCC 684]
Hon'ble Supreme Court has propounded that if a second appeal is
admitted on substantial question of law, while hearing second
appeal finally, can re-frame substantial question of law or can
frame substantial question of law afresh or even can hold that no
substantial question of law involved, but the High Court cannot
exercise its jurisdiction of Section 100 CPC without formulating
substantial question of law.
16. In the present case substantial questions of law as framed
have been considered and this court is of the opinion that all other
questions of law raised are essentially either question of facts or
have already been settled by way of judicial precedents. Thus, in
this second appeal, no substantial question of law involved.
Accordingly, the second appeal is not liable to succeed.
Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed.
17. Any other pending application(s), if any, also stand(s)
disposed of.
18. Record of courts below be sent back forthwith.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
Arn/73
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
