U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

D.S. Sinha, J.—Heard Sri. S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.K. Saxena, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri A.K. Misra, holding brief of Sri Uma Kant Misra, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 3.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against two awards dated April 5, 1978 rendered in Misc. Case No. 9 of 1977 and Misc. Case No. 5 of 1978 given by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gorakhpur u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which are founded on the decree and judgment dated October 30, 1975 of the III Addl. Munsif, Azamgarh passed in Suit No. 489 of 1974 Kuber Ram Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. declaring the termination of the services of the petitioner to be invalid and directing for his employment as Conductor.

The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the decree and judgment dated October 30, 1975 on which the impugned awards are founded was a nullity; inasmuch as the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to pass the same as the jurisdiction of the civil court in the matter relating to the employment of specified employees including the petitioner had been taken away by the U.P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the Act) and that being so, the impugned awards cannot be sustained in law.

The Court is afraid, contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be sustained. It is true that the Act purports to oust the jurisdiction of the civil court in relation to the matters of employment of public servants and certain other employees but such ouster became effective only after enforcement of the Act. Section 1 of the Act declares that the Act shall be taken to have come into force on November 24, 1975. Thus the ouster of the jurisdiction of the civil court from a day before November 24, 1975 cannot be inferred. In the instant case, the decree and judgment of the learned HI Addl. Munsif, Azamgarh which formed the basis of the impugned awards, was rendered on October 30, 1975, a day on which he had full jurisdiction to pass the decree and judgment. In view of the fact that the learned Munsif had jurisdiction to pass the said decree and that his jurisdiction had not been ousted by the Act, it cannot be held that the impugned awards are based on a decree which was null and void. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard, therefore, fails.

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails. The impugned awards are upheld. The petition shall stand dismissed and interim order discharged. There will be no order as to costs.