Rajasthan High Court
R S R T C And Ors vs Dilip Singh on 12 January, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:2023]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 402/2001
1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through
General Managing- Cum- Managing Director, R.s.r.t.c.,
Jaipur
2. Divisional Manager, R.s.r.t.c., Bharatpur Raj.
----Appellants
Versus
Dilip Singh S/o Shri Bahori Singh, Village Jafeh Johar Basai Teh.
And Distt. Dholpur Raj. Ex- Conductor, R.s.r.t.c., Bharatpur
Depot, Bharatpur Raj.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepak Goyal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sankalp Sogani, Adv.
Mr. Umang Jain, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 12/01/2024
The appellants-defendants (for short 'the defendants') have
preferred this second appeal challenging the judgment and
decreed dated 10.08.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge
No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Regular Appeal No.111/1992,
whereby the appeal filed by the defendants has been dismissed
and the judgment and decree dated 07.07.1992 passed by the
Additional Munsiff Magistrate No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit
No.525/89, decreeing the suit for declaration filed by the
respondent-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') has been affirmed.
Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff had filed a civil suit
for declaration in the court of the Additional Munsiff Magistrate
No.2, Jaipur, City, Jaipur challenging the termination order No.18
[2024:RJ-JP:2023] (2 of 4) [CSA-402/2001]
dated 02.01.1987 on the ground that the said order was passed
without following the principle of natural justice. No departmental
inquiry was conducted and no opportunity of hearing and
submitting the defence before the Authority was granted to him.
The said suit was transferred to Additional Munsiff Magistrate
No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur for adjudication.
Defendants filed written statement and denied the
averments made in the plaint and submitted that plaintiff was
appointed as conductor on 13.09.1995 on temporary basis. He
remained absent from duty without giving any information.
Plaintiff was given notice on 05.12.1986 but despite that he had
not joined the duty. So, following the principle of natural justice
and in accordance with law, his services was terminated.
Defendants also took plea that dispute pertains to Industrial
Dispute, which is exclusively triable by the labour court. So, civil
court had no jurisdiction.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court
framed the 6 issues.
Plaintiff examined himself as PW1. Defendants had not
adduced any evidence.
Trial court considering the evidence of the plaintiff, decreed
the suit in his favour and declared the order dated 02.01.1987
illegal being contrary to the principle of natural justice and held
him entitled to be continued in service and directed the
defendants to give all consequential benefits to the plaintiff.
Defendants challenged the judgment and decree passed by
the trial court before the first appellate court. The first appellate
court vide judgment dated 10.08.1999 dismissed the appeal filed
[2024:RJ-JP:2023] (3 of 4) [CSA-402/2001]
by the defendants and affirmed the judgment dated 07.07.1992
passed by the trial court.
Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the trial
court as well as appellate court had not considered the averments
of the defendants that the case pertains to Industrial Dispute,
which is exclusively triable by the labour court not by the civil
court. So, judgments of the trial court as well as appellate court
be set aside.
Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon
the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan
State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa in
Civil Appeal No.328/2005 decided on 12.01.2009.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants and submitted
that the trial court as well as appellate court had not committed
any error because service of the plaintiff was terminated without
following the principle of natural justice. So, as per the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court, Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the
suit because civil rights of the plaintiff was violated. So, appeal be
dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the
plaintiff.
It is an admitted position that while terminating the services
of the plaintiff, defendants had not followed the principle of natural
justice. They had not given opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff.
So, civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. So,
present appeal being devoid of merit deserves dismissal as no
[2024:RJ-JP:2023] (4 of 4) [CSA-402/2001]
substantial question of law as suggested by counsel for the
defendants in the memo of appeal does arise nor there is any
other substantial question of law in the instant appeal.
The Civil Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /AVG/29
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
