Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 INSC 934
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9279 OF 2014
BASTIRAM …APPELLANT(s)
VERSUS
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR. …RESPONDENT(s)
J U D G M E N T
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The workman has filed the present appeal impugning the
1 2
judgment of the High Court whereby second appeal filed by the
respondents was allowed setting aside the concurrent judgment and
decree o f the courts below.
2. Briefly , the facts available on record are that the appellant
3
was appointed as a conductor with the respondent no.1-Corporation
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NIDHI AHUJA
Date: 2024.12.05
17:03:20 IST
Reason:
1
High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur
2
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 414 of 2007
3
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
Page 1 of 4
on 14.12.1979. He was dismissed from service on 03.11.1982 on
account of incorrect punching of tickets on one occasion and on three
occasions, passengers were found travelling without tickets when the
4
appellant was on duty . In appeal , the order of dismissal was upheld
vide order dated 19.10.1983 . Challenging the order of dismissal , the
appellant filed a civil suit in the Court of Additional Munsiff Magistrate–
II, Jaipur City on 26.04.1986. The suit was decreed on 31.03.2006 . The
5
Trial Court held that the dismissal of the appellant was illegal as he was
6
not granted fair opportunity of hearing . The judgment and the decree
of the Trial Court were challenged by the respondents by filing an
7 8
appeal . The same was upheld by the First Appellate Court vide
judgment and decree dated 29.03.2007. Aggrieved, against the same,
the respondents preferred second appeal before the High Court. The
9
same was allowed vide impugned judgment passed by the High Court
on the ground that the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain
the dispute as appellant should have invoked the jurisdiction under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is the aforesaid judgment of the High
Court which is impugned in the present appeal by the appellant-
4
Order No. 2830
5
Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) – III, Jaipur City, Jaipur
6
Civil Case No. 628 of 1988
7
Civil Regular Appeal No. 27 of 2006
8
Court of Additional District Judge – VI, Jaipur City, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
9
Dated 13.07.2012
Page 2 of 4
workman.
3. Both the learned counsels sought to raise arguments in
support and against the judgment of the High Court. The appellant
claimed that Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the lis as there
was complete violation of the principles of natural justice while
awarding punishment. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents
was that Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the lis as the proper
remedy for the appellant was under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. Both the learned counsels for the parties have been heard.
Considering the fact that the appellant was appointed as conductor with
the respondent no.1-Corporation on 14.12.1979 and he was dismissed
on 03.11.1982, it is apparent that the appellant served the respondent
no.1-Corporation for about 03 years. At present, considering the time
gap ever since he was appointed, he must have attained the age of
superannuation. In our opinion, the ends of justice will be met if the
appellant is awarded a lump sum amount of compensation of
₹ 2,00,000/- instead of going into the merits of controversy either
deciding jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the lis or relegating
the appellant to seek relief under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
5. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order
Page 3 of 4
passed by the High Court is modified to the extent that the appellant is
held entitled to a compensation of ₹ 2,00,000/- to resolve the entire
controversy in hand.
6. Accordingly, the Civil Appeal is disposed of with no order
as to costs.
……………….……………..J.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI)
……………….……………..J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
New Delhi
December 02, 2024.
Page 4 of 4