2009(7)SCR 336 APOLLO TYRES LTD.

V. C.P. SABASTIAN

Civil Appeal No. 7007 of 2003 APRIL 30, 2009

(MARKANDEY KATJU AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.)

The following order of the Court was delivered  

1. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment  

of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 06th September,  2002 passed in CMA No.14 of 2001 whereby the High Court while  confirming the judgment and decree of the court below has held  that the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

2.  The  reaspondent-plaintiff,  hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  ‘plaintiff’ was an employee of the appellant-defendant, hereinafter  referred to as the ‘defendant’ which is a private company and not  State under Article 12 of the Constitution.

3. Facts giving rise to this appeal are:

The plaintiff filed a suit being OS No. 2098 of 1999 before the  Munsiff’s Court, Irinjalakuda, District Thrissur, Kerala seeking the  following reliefs:

“A. Declaring  that  plaintiff  is  still  a  workman  (Radial  Tyre  Builder) and continues to be a workman under the defendant  entitled  for  wages  and  all  other  consequential  benefits  of  service from the defendant.

B. Declaring that the order of transfer (Ref.WKS/PSL dated  08-10-1999)  issued by the defendant  transferring plaintiff  to  West  Bengal  is  intended  to  victimize,  made  with  malafie  intentions, irregular and illegal.

C. Restraining  defendant  and  its  officers  from  compelling  plaintiff by any modes to accept any promoted post which he  is not willing to hold.

D. Restraining the defendant, its officers and men from any  way interfering with plaintiff’s right to perform legitimate trade

union activities as the General Secretary of the union Apollo  Tyres Workers Movement.

E. Granting the cost of suit from the defendant and allowing  plaintiff to realize the same from the defendant and its assets.”

4. Defendant filed a written statement in the suit as well as I.A.  No. 1707 of 2000 stating that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in  the matter.  

5. The trial Court by its order dated 05th day of October, 2000  allowed the said application and dismissed the suit  filed by the  plaintiff.

6.  Aggrieved  against  the  aforesaid  order  of  the  trial  Court,  plaintiff filed an appeal before the first appellate authority.

7. The first appellate authority by its order dated 25th January,  2001 reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and held  that  the  Civil  Court  has  jurisdiction  to  entertain  the  dispute.  Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the trial Court for a fresh  disposal.

8. Aggrieved against the order of the first appellate authority,  the defendant filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 14 of 2001 in  the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.

9. The High Court, by the impugned order, has confirmed the  order of the first appellate authority and held that the civil  Court  has jurisdiction to entertain the matter. It was also directed that the  suit shall be disposed of within three months.

10. Aggrieved against the impugned order, the defendant is  before us.

11.  Heard learned counsel  for  the  parties  and perused the  record.

12. On the facts of the case, we are clearly of the view that the  suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by Section 14(b) of the Specific  Relief Act, 1963 which states that a contract of personal service  cannot be enforced in a civil suit. In our opinion, if the plaintiff had  any grievance and if he is a workman as defined in the Industrial  Disputes Act,  1947,  he should have raised an industrial  dispute  and sought relief  under the Industrial  Disputes Act,  1947 before  the labour  Court  or  industrial  Tribunal.  There  are many powers  which the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal enjoy which the Civil

Court  does  not  enjoy  e.g.  the  power  to  enforce  contracts  of  personal  service,  to  create  contracts,  to  change  contracts  etc.  These things can only be done by the Labour Court or Industrial  Tribunal  but  cannot  be  done  by  a  civil  Court.  A  contract  for  personal service includes all matters relating to the service of the  employee e.g. confirmation, suspension, transfer, termination etc.

13.  In  our  opinion,  the  reliefs  claimed  by  the  plaintiff  were  clearly seeking enforcement of a contract of personal service and  the civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant such reliefs as held by  this Court in the case of  Pearlite Lioners (P) Ltd. vs. Manorama  Sirsi  (2004) 3 SCC 172.  The High Court  and the first  appellate  Court  were  clearly  in  error  in  holding  that  the  civil  court  had  jurisdiction in the matter and the trial Court was right in holding that  the civil court had no jurisdiction and rightly dismissed the suit filed  by the plaintiff.

14.  Accordingly,  this  appeal  is  allowed,  the  impugned  judgment of the High Court and the first appellate Court are set  aside and that of the trial Court is restored. No order as to costs.

Civil Appeal No.7008 of 2003

15. Following the judgment in Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. Sebastian  which is the subject matter of Civil Appeal No.7007 of 2003, the  High Court  has allowed the revision filed by the plaintiff  holding  that the suit is maintainable.

16. Since, we have accepted the appeal filed against the relied on  judgment, this appeal is also allowed and the impugned judgment of the  High Court is set aside and that of the lower Court is restored. No order  as to costs.