http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SITARAM KASHIRAM KONDA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PIGMENT CAKES & CHEMICALS MFG. CO.

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/07/1979

BENCH: UNTWALIA, N.L. BENCH: UNTWALIA, N.L. SEN, A.P. (J)

CITATION:  1980 AIR   16            1980 SCR  (1) 125  1979 SCC  (4)  12

ACT:      Termination of  Service-Declaratory suit  to set  aside the  termination   and  for   awarding  compensation-Dispute whether of a civil nature cognizable by a civil court.

HEADNOTE:      The appellant  filed a  suit against  his employer, the respondent, for  a declaration that he had been removed from service illegally  and without any reason and that he should be reinstated  in his  former  job  with  due  benefits  and advantages. He  also claimed  compensation. The  trial court held that  the dispute  raised by  the appellant  was in the nature of an industrial dispute and that the civil court had no jurisdiction  to try  the same. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and held that the dispute raised was of a civil nature  and the  case was cognizable by a civil court. In the  respondent’s second  appeal, the  High Court  agreed with the view of the trial court and held that the appellant had not  claimed damages  by pleading wrongful dismissal and breach of  the contract  of his  service and  that the facts pleaded in  the  plaint  showed  that  the  dispute  was  an industrial dispute  cognizable only  by an  industrial court and not by a civil court.      In the  further appeal  to this  Court  the  point  for consideration was  whether  on  the  facts  pleaded  by  the appellant the  dispute was  an industrial dispute cognizable only by an industrial court and not by a civil court.      Allowing the appeal, ^      HELD:(1) It  is not  quite correct to say that the suit as filed  by the  appellant is  not maintainable at all in a civil court.  The main  reliefs asked  for by  the appellant which when  granted will  amount to  specific performance of the contract  of service  and,  therefore,  they  cannot  be granted. But  the appellant  in  the  alternative  has  also claimed for awarding compensation to him. [127A-C]      (2) Reading  the plaint as a whole, it can legitimately be culled out that the appellant had made out a case that he was wrongfully  dismissed from service. This relief could be granted by  the civil court if it found that the plaintiff’s case was  true. The  High Court was not right in saying that no such  case had  at all  been made  in the plaint. To this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

limited extent  the matter  could be  examined by  the civil court. [127D-E]      Dr. S. B. Dutt v. University of Delhi, [1959] SCR 1236; S. R.  Tewari v.  Distt. Board Agra & Anr., [1964] 3 SCR 55; Indian Airlines Corp. v. Sukhdeo Rai, [1971] Suppl. SCR 510, Premier Automobiles  Ltd. v.  Kamlekar  Shantaram  Wadke  of Bombay & Ors., [1976] 1 SCR 427; referred to.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No.  5  of 1969. 126      From the  Judgment and  Order dated  20th June, 1968 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 48/66.      K. Jayaram, Amicus Curiae for the Appellant.      Y. S. Chitaley, M. V. Goswami and Ambrish Kumar for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      UNTWALIA, J.-The  plaintiff-appellant filed  a suit  in the  Trial   Court  in   the  year   1963  alleging  certain unjustifiable  and  illegal  actions  on  the  part  of  his employer, the respondent in this appeal. The reliefs claimed in the suit were the following:-           "(a) That it  may be  declared that  the defendant                has  removed   the  plaintiff   from  service                illegally and without any reason.            (b) That it  may be  declared that  the defendant                failed  and   neglected  to   re-employ   the                plaintiff although  the  defendant  restarted                the factory.           (c)  That the  defendant be  ordered to  reinstate                the plaintiff  to his  former  job  with  due                benefits and advantages.           (d)  In  the  alternative  the  defendant  may  be                ordered  to   pay  to   the  plaintiff   such                compensation as to the Hon’ble Court may deem                fit.           (e)  For costs of the suit.           (f)  For such  further and  other reliefs  as this                Hon’ble Court may deem fit."      On contest by the respondent, the Trial Court held that the dispute  raised by the appellant was in the nature of an industrial  dispute   and  hence  the  Civil  Court  had  to jurisdiction to  try it.  The appellant  took the  matter in appeal before  the First  Appellate Court.  It  allowed  the appeal and  held that  the dispute  raised was  of  a  civil nature and  the case  was cognizable  by a  Civil Court. The respondent filed the second appeal in the High Court and the High Court  has agreed  with the view of the Trial Court. It has said  that the  appellant had  not  claimed  damages  by pleading wrongful  dismissal and  breach of  the contract of his service.  The facts pleaded by him all converged to show that the  dispute was  an industrial dispute cognizable only by an  industrial court  and  not  by  a  Civil  Court.  The appellant has  presented his  appeal  in  this  Court  by  a certificate granted by the High Court. 127      The Court is obliged to Mr. K. Jayaram for assisting it as Amicus  Curiae in this case. After having appreciated the entire facts  and the  circumstances of  the case, we are of the opinion  that it  is not  quite correct  to say that the suit filed  by the appellant is not maintainable at all in a Civil Court.  The correct  position of  law is that the main

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

reliefs asked  for by  him which when granted will amount to specific  performance   of  the   contract  of  service  and therefore they  cannot be  granted. There  are a  number  of decisions of  this Court  to that  effect; to  wit-Dr. S. B. Dutt v.  University of  Delhi(1), S.  R. Tiwari  v. District Board Agra  & Anr.(2)  and Indian  Airlines  Corporation  v. Sukhdeo  Rai.(3)   Reference  was   also  be  made  in  this connection  to   the  decision  of  this  Court  in  Premier Automobiles Ltd.  v. Kamlekar  Shantaram Wadke of Bombay and Ors.(4)      But then  in the  alternative, the  appellant had  also prayed for  awarding compensation  to him.  And reading  the plaint as a whole, it can legitimately be culled out that he had made  out a  case, whether  it was right on fact or not, that  is  a  different  question,  that  he  was  wrongfully dismissed from  service. This relief could be granted by the Civil Court  if it found that the plaintiff’s case was true. The High  Court, in our opinion, is not right in saying that no such  case had at all been made out in the plaint. In our opinion, as  we have  earlier said,  reading the plaint as a whole, such  case can  be spelt  out. That  being so to this limited extent,  the matter  could be  examined by the Civil Court.      We accordingly allow the appeal set aside the judgments of the  courts below  and send  back the  case to  the Trial Court for  disposing it  of in  accordance with  law in  the light of  this judgment. There will be no order as to costs. Since the  suit has  become very  old, the  Trial  Court  is directed to dispose it of as expeditiously as possible. N.V.K.                                       Appeal allowed. 128