CIVIL COURTS HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN A SUIT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT

The Apex Court was hearing a matter related to an employee under the Electricity Board of Himachal Pradesh. On 1st January 1985, his services were terminated by an order issued by the Executive Engineer. The Wage employee challenged the order in a civil court through the civil suit and claimed that he rendered uninterrupted service for 2,778 days. He also said the 'right to be regularized' after fulfilment of 240 days of continuous service. 

The defendant, however, argued that the plaintiff never rendered service for a continuous period of 240 days and was, therefore, not qualified to claim regularization. 

Civil Court

The Civil Court framed two questions, first, whether the dispute is maintainable based on the Jurisdiction and second, Whether the plaintiff had rendered 240 days of uninterrupted service? The answers were positive and in favour of the employee, and, therefore, the Court directed the defendant to regularise and reinstate the employee-petitioner in service.

District Judge, Dharamshala

The defendant-Electricity Board filed an appeal before the District Judge, Dharamshala. The Jurisdiction of the civil Court was again raised. The district judge noted that it would not be proper to transfer the plaintiff to the labour court since the litigation continues for an extended period. And therefore, upheld the order of the Civil Court.

High Court, Himachal Pradesh

The Appellant contended that a decree passed in the absence of Jurisdiction is a legal nullity, and the Industrial Court could only grant any relief of the aggrieved employee. The HC set aside the order of the Civil Court, stating that the Court lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit based on the ID Act.

Supreme Court

"The Court is of the view that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to consider a suit under the provisions of the ID Act. The decree passed favouring the plaintiff is a legal nullity, and the finding of the High Court is upheld." However, considering the hardship to the terminated employee, the Court directed that that arrear sum paid to the petitioner under the Court's decree should not be recovered.

Author: Papiha Ghoshal