Full Judgment Text
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
th
of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 06 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.
th
5. The trial Court by its order dated 05 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.
th
7. The first appellate authority by its order dated 25 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.