http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4670 of 2004

PETITIONER: R.S.R.T.C. & ORS.

RESPONDENT: RAMDHARA INDOLIYA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/07/2006

BENCH: Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

Dr. AR . Lakshmanan, J.

       Although respondent is served, nobody appears for the  respondent.           This appeal is directed against the final judgment dated 3rd  September, 2002 of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, in  S.B.Civil Second Appeal No.138 of 1997.           We have heard Mr. S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the  appellants.  The respondent was appointed as a Conductor on  daily wages by the Corporation.  His services were terminated as  the same were not required by the Corporation.  The High Court,  without considering the fact that the respondent being daily wager  has no substantive right to hold the post, however, has committed  serious error in dismissing the second appeal filed by the  Corporation and affirming the judgment and decree passed by the  Appellate Court and also of the Trial Court.    In our view, the High  Court has committed a grave error in not considering the fact that  the respondent being workman and a dispute being an industrial  dispute, Civil Court has no jurisdiction and try the suit for  reinstatement. Trial Court which passed the decree has got no  pecuniary jurisdiction and, therefore, the decree passed by the  Trial Court is without jurisdiction.  The above submission made by  Mr. S.K. Jain merit acceptance.  In fact, in the written statement  filed by the appellant Corporation, the question of jurisdiction has  been specifically raised.  The Court has also framed an issue in  regard to the jurisdiction and hearing by the Civil Court.  However,  the said issue has not been rightly considered and properly  answered.           The case on hand is covered by a very recent decision of  this Court reported in 2005 (7) SCC 447 (decided by Mrs. Justice  Ruma Pal and Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan).  The said appeal was  filed by the very same Road Transport Corporation, against its  workman, who was appointed as Conductor on probation and his  services were terminated by the Corporation, which was  challenged by the workman.  The very same workman had  approached the Civil Court and obtained a decree, which was  affirmed by the Appellate Court and also by the High Court, against  which Civil Appeal No.5176 of 2005 was filed by the Rajasthan  State Road Transport Corporation in this Court.  This Court, after  hearing the counsel appearing for the respective parties, held that  the only remedy available to the workman was by way of reference  under the Industrial Disputes Act and not by way of a suit.  This  Court also held that the workman in that case was also not entitled  to the protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.   This Court also held that if the Court has no jurisdiction, the  jurisdiction cannot be conferred by any order of the Court.  This  Court also held that where an Act creates an obligation and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

enforces the performance in a specified manner, the performance  cannot be enforced in any other manner.  The respondent in that  case has failed to approach the remedies provided under the  Industrial Disputes Act.         In the instant case also, the respondent, who is also  similarly placed as in the other case covered by the Industrial  Disputes Act, has failed to approach the Industrial Court, but  approached the Civil Court, which on the facts and circumstances  of the case had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.   Therefore, this judgment (supra) rendered by this Court squarely  applies to the facts and circumstances of this case.  In our view,  the respondent is not entitled for any payment by way of salary or  other wages.  He is also not entitled for any reinstatement or back  wages.  However, if the respondent has already been paid some  amount, the same amount may not be recovered from him.  We  make it clear that the respondent shall not be entitled to continue  in service any further and he shall not be entitled for any wages  except to already paid to him.  The respondent shall be discharged  forthwith.         The Appeal is accordingly allowed.  There shall be no orders  as to costs.