Rules laid down in the statutory rules indisputably should be fol- lowed v. In Narinder Mohan Arya

Judgment

#1. 2. 1995(5) sec 75 2006(1) sec 59 161 H 162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. A the Court was as to the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain suits questioning orders of termination passed by appellant-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation against its employees. Answering the reference, the Court 8 · , HELD: 1.1 The jurisdiction of civil court in terms of . s.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to try suits of civil nature is a plenary one. The provision relating to bar to entertain a suit must, therefore, be laid down by a stat ute either expressly or by necessary implication. If a stat- e ute while creating rights and obligations did not consti tute a forum for enforcing the same, plenary jurisdiction of the civil court in view of Premier Automobiles Ltd could not be held to have been taken away. [para 9 and 16) [89-F, G, H; 181-A] D The Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay & ors. (1976) 1 SCC 496; Narinder Mohan Arya vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors. (2006) 4 SCC 713; Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank 2009 (1) SCALE 284; Dhulabai vs. State of M. P (1968) 3 S.C.R. 662; E Church of North India vs. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai & ors. (2005) 10 SCC 760; United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Ajay Sinha & Anr 2008 (8) SCALE 509 - relied on. Wolverhampton New Waterworks Co. vs. Hawkesford (1859) 6 CB (NS) 336: 28LJ CP 242:141 ER 486 - relied on. F Rajasthan SRTC & Ors. Vs. Khadarmal 2006(1) SCC 59 - referred to.

1.2 A dispute arising in between employer and em ployee may or may not be an industrial dispute. The ap- G pellant-Corporation is a State within the meaning of Ar ticle 12 of the Constitution of India. If an act on its part is found to be wholly unreasonable or arbitrary, the same would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of In dia. In certain situations, even gross violation of the prin- H ciples of natural justice has been held to come within the -I ' ·i 1 RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR. V BAL MUKUND BAIRWA 163 ambit of Article 14. Any order passed in violation of the A principles of natural justice save and except certain con- tingencies of cases, would be a nullity. In the event it is found that the action on the part of State is violative of the constitutional provisions or the mandatory requirements of a statute or statutory rules the civil court would have B the jurisdiction to direct reinstatement with full back wages. However, if the claim relates to violation of a right of a workman and a corresponding obligation on the part of the employer under the Industrial Disputes Act or the Certified Standing brders, a civil suit may not lie. But, if c no procedure has been followed as laid down by the statu- tory Regulation or is otherwise imperative even under the common law or the principles of natural justice which right having arisen under the existing law, sub-para (2) of para- graph 23 of the law laid down in Premier Automobiles Ltd. shall prevail. An assumption that all such cases would D fall only under the Industrial Disputes Act or sister laws and, thus, the jurisdiction of the civil court would be barred, may not be the correct interpretation of Premier Automobiles Ltd. Which being a three-Judge Bench judg- ment and having followed Dhu/abhai which is a Con_stitu- E tion Bench judgment, is binding. [para 21-23 and 28-29] [181-A, B, C, D; 184-G, H; 185-C, D, E] The Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay & ors. (1976) 1 SCC 496; Dhulabai vs. State of M. P. (1968) 3 S. C.R. 662; Sawai Singh vs. State of F Rajasthan (1986) 3 SCC 454; and Narinder Mohan Arya vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 713; Satyavir Singh & ors. vs. Union of India & ors. (1985) 4SCC 252; Delhi Transport Corporation vs. 0. TC. Mazdoor Con- gress & ors.; 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600; Union of India & Anr. G vs. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398; Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited & Anr. vs. Brojo Nath Gangu/y & Anr. (1986) 3 SCC 156; Praga Tools Corpn. Vs. C.A. !manual (1969) 1 SCC 585; and Rajasthan State Road Transport Cor- poration & ors. vs. Mohar Singh (2008) 5 sec 542 - relied on. H 164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. A

1.3 It would not be correct to say that only because the employee concerned is also a workman within the meaning of the provisions of the 1947 Act or the condi . tions of his service are otherwise governed by the Stand ing Order certified under the 1946 Act ipsQ facto the civil court B will have no jurisdiction. [para 23] [185-G, H; 186-A, B] Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & ors. vs. Mohar Singh (2008) 5 SCC 542 - relied on

1.4 Where the relationship between the parties as em ployer and employee is contractual,-right to enforce the C contract of service depending on personal volition of an employer, is prohibited in terms of Section 14(1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It has, however, four exceptions, namely, (1) when an employee enjoys a status, i.e., his conditions of service are governed by the rules framed D under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Consti tution of India or a statute and would otherwise be gov erned by Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India; (2) where the conditions of service are governed by statute or statutory Regulation and in the event mandatory pro- E visions thereof have been breached; (3) when the service of the employee is otherwise protected by a statute; and (4) where a right is claimed under the Industrial Disputes Act or sister laws, termination of service having been ef fected in breach of the provisions thereof. [para 23] [186- F D, E, F]

2.1 Where the conditions of service are governed by two statutes, and an order passed against an employee/ workman in violation of a rule attracts both the statutes, an attempt shall be_ made to apply the principles of 'Har- G monious Construction". When there is a doubt as to whether civil court has jurisdiction to try a suit or not, the courts shall raise a presumption that it has such jurisdic tion. [para 24] [187-G, H; 188-A]

M. P Housing Board & Anr. Vs. Mano} Shrivastava H 2006(2) SCC 702; M. P Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs. M. P "' ' ' t ~ 1 RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR. V. BAL MUKUND BAIRWA 165