court: Civil court lacks jurisdiction to entertain suit structured on provisions of ID Act: SC | India News


NEW DELHI: A civilian court lacks jurisdiction to hear a structured claim on the provisions of the Labor disputes law, the Supreme Court he said Friday while dismissing an appeal filed by a man challenging an order on his firing.
A bench of Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy said that civil courts may have limited jurisdiction in service matters, but the court may not have jurisdiction to try orders passed by the disciplinary authority.
“This Court cannot accept the point of view proposed by the courts below and is of the considered opinion that the civil court lacks jurisdiction to hear a claim structured in the provisions of the Identification Act,” the court said.
The higher court said that the authorities specified in the IDA, including the appropriate government and the industrial courts perform various functions and the Identification Act provides a broader definition of “termination of service”, the condition prior to termination of service.
“The consequences of infringing them are also set out in the Identification Act. When a litigant opts for a common law remedy, he can choose between the civil court or the industrial forum,” the court said.
Referring to its previous decisions, the court said that when the civil court does not have jurisdiction, the decree approved in those proceedings cannot have the force of law.
“As can be seen from the registered material, the challenge to the termination was based on the provisions of the Identification Act. Although a jurisdictional objection was raised and a specific issue was raised at the request of the employer, the issue was answered against the defendant “, He said.
“Consequently, the appeal is devoid of merit and it is dismissed,” said the magistrate.
However, considering the terminated employee’s hardships, the backlog that was paid to him pursuant to the court decree should not be recovered, the court said.
The high court was hearing an appeal from Milkhi Ram, a daily salaried employee of the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, whose temporary employee service was dispensed with by order issued by the Executive Engineer.
This order was challenged in the Civil Lawsuit in which it was stated that he had provided services for more than 240 days in a year and, therefore, his service could not have been terminated without complying with the legal requirement.
Consequently, the lawsuit was decreed ordering the reinstatement of the plaintiff with back wages. The defendant was ordered to also consider regularization of the service, for the plaintiff.
The Board challenged the above decision before the district judge, Dharamsala where the jurisdiction of the civil court was again challenged but the court of appeal noted that the issue of jurisdiction is a mixed issue of law and fact and since the litigation continues for a long time, it would not be appropriate to relegate the plaintiff to the labor court.
According to the court of appeal, the worker had the right to choose the appeal either before the civil court or before the industrial court and, consequently, the decree favoring the plaintiff was confirmed by rejecting the jurisdictional objection raised by the Board.
The new challenge of the decree by the Board was not considered and then the Board made the offer to name the rescinded daily bet for the LDC position on the regular salary scale.
In response to the offer of appointment, Milkhi submitted an incorporation report with various conditions, which was not attended to by management.
Subsequently, he requested the execution of the decree before the Civil Judge (Juvenile Chamber) who ordered the Board to give effect to the decree.
This order of the execution court was challenged by the Board before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which annulled the decree approved in favor of the plaintiff.

Source link


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here