Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another vs Maan Singh

Mohammad Rafiq, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants against the judgment and decree dt. 16.11.2007 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Ajmer in Civil Appeal No. 81/2005 (298/2004). The aforesaid appeal was admitted on the substantial question of law "as to whether the civil court has jurisdiction in the matters of Industrial Disputes".

The plaintiff-respondent had filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction stating inter alia that the appellant-Corporation had without jurisdiction imposed the penalty of censure alongwith the penalty of recovery of Rs. 17,500/-. He was exonerated by the enquiry officer and was also acquitted from the charge under Secs. 304-A & 279, IPC and the criminal trial. Hence, the order of recovery dt. 15.07.1998 directing recovery of Rs. 17,500/- from the appellant is illegal.

The trial Court on issue No. 1 recorded a finding that the enquiry officer was not justified in exonerating the plaintiff. The enquiry officer has provided an opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff. The disciplinary authority has also given opportunity of hearing. The PW-1 Maan Singh, plaintiff before the trial Court, admitted that his statements were recorded during the disciplinary enquiry. Even though the enquiry officer exonerated the plaintiff, but he could not have been exonerated. The disciplinary authority has held that the plaintiff could have been exonerated, only if he was acquitted by the trial Court. On issue No. 2, the trial court held that since the civil suit has been filed alleging violation of the principle of natural justice, therefore, it would have jurisdiction to entertain the same. The first appellate Court, however, reverse the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 1. It was held by the appellate court that though the enquiry officer exonerated the plaintiff-respondent, but the disciplinary authority had taken a different view from the enquiry officer and passed the order of penalty and in doing so, he did not provide the opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff and also did not supply any documents to the plaintiff. It is no mention of any evidence in his order why he has deferred with the enquiry officer. Thus, the order was passed total breach of principle of natural justice and therefore is void and non est.

The appeal was admitted only on the ground whether the civil Court has jurisdiction in the matter of Industrial Dispute. Even otherwise, this Court in the case of Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, held that in the case of a driver, working with the State Government, who was similarly situated, held responsible for an accident while driving the government Jeep and therefore, by the order of penalty required to pay ascertain amount. It was held that the Jeep in question was given in course of the employment, therefore, the State Government cannot escape from its vicarious liability realizing the amount of compensation which was paid by the State Government to the injured from the pay of the driver cannot be justified. It was further held that it would be justified and therefore, the order of penalty was also set aside. In the case of Rajasthan SRTC and Others Vs. Mohar Singh, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the civil Court may have a limited jurisdiction in service matters but it cannot be said to have no jurisdiction at all to entertain a suit. It is a trite law that where the right is claimed by the plaintiff in terms of common law or under a statute other than the one which created a new right for the first time and when forum has also been created for enforcing the said right, the civil Court shall also have jurisdiction to entertain a suit where the plaintiff claim benefit of a fundamental right as adumbrated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and relying upon the decisions in Mohar Singh (supra), and Jaswant Singh (supra), I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.