Holding

Civil courts have no jurisdiction to entertain suits concerning rights or obligations created by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and any decree passed without such jurisdiction is a nullity.

Summary

Bikar Singh, a conductor with Haryana Roadways, was dismissed for allegedly embezzling fare money. He appealed the dismissal to the Additional Transport Commissioner, which was rejected, and then filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that he remained in service and that the dismissal orders were void. The trial civil court, without deciding on its jurisdiction, heard the merits and ruled in his favour; the High Court affirmed that decree. The Supreme Court held that civil courts lack jurisdiction to entertain disputes arising under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that any decree passed without jurisdiction is a nullity. Consequently, the orders of both the civil court and the High Court were set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The Court also noted that the salary paid to the respondent during his continued service could not be recovered.

Issues considered

Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging dismissal of a government employee under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Subjects

jurisdictioncivil courtindustrial disputes actlabour lawdismissalnullity of decreeappellate jurisdictiongovernment employee

Judgment

A STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
V.
-
BIKAR SINGH

MARCH 22, 2006

B (H.K. SEMA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.]

Labour Law:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
c
Jurisdiction of Civil Court-Conductor in Haryana Roadways-Dismissal
from service-Suit filed before civil court for declaring order null and void-
TJ.ough civil court framed issue as regards its jurisdiction but recorded no
finding thereto and decreed the suit---Held, all courts below including High
D Court failed to norice this important questwn of law -In the view that this
court has been taking consistently. the civt! cuurt had not jurisdiction to
entertain such suit and any decree passed by chi: cir ii court without jurisdiction
is a nullity--Orders of civil and High Court set aside.

Rajasthan State Road Tramport Corporation and Anr. v. Krishna Kant
E and Ors., (19951 5 SCC 75 and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation ....-~
and Ors. v. Zakir Hussain, (2005) 7 SC 447, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3951 of2002.

From the Judgment and Order dated 5.9.2001 of the High Court of
F Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 3273/1999.

Dr. Gagender S. Chauhan, Harikesh Singh, T.V. George for the
Appellants.

Naresh Kaushik, Anjani Kumar Jha for the Respondent.
G
The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Pursuant to our order dated 22.02.2005, Mr. Joginder Singh, General
Manager, Haryana Roadways Sirsa Depot, Sirsa, Haryana has filed a detailed
-
affidavit explaining the circumstances and tendered an unqualified apology
H 212
STATE OF HARYANA v. BIKAR SINGH 213

-
·~

for any omission or commission said to have been committed by the
contemnor. We have gone through the affidavit and apology tendered by the
contemnor which is accepted. The suo motu contempt initiated against the
A

contemnor is discharged.

This appeal is filed by the State of Haryana against the order of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana. B
We have heard the parties.

In view of the order that we propose to pass, it may not be necessary
to recite all facts leading to the filing of the present appeal. The respondent
herein was working as Conductor in the Haryana Roadways, Sirsa Depot. He C
was dismissed from service by order dated 25.8.94 by the General Manager
of the Haryana Roadways. The order of dismissal is preceded by an enquiry
in which the charge was found established against him. The charge against
the respondent was that while he was working as Conductor in the Haryana
Roadways Depot, he collected Rs. 200/- from the passenger but did not issue D
ticket and thereby embezzeled Rs. 200/-. Apart from that, it is also in evidence
on record that the respondent prior to the dismissal of his service, was placed
under suspension on several occasions and his annual increments were stopped.
Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, he preferred an appeal before the

-
Additional Transport Commissioner which was dismissed on 29.6.1995.
Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed civil suit, namely, suit No. 1361/95 E
before the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Sirsa inter alia seeking a decree of
declaration that the respondent may be deemed to be in service and the orders
dated 25.8.1994 and 28.6.1995 to be declared as null and void. The Trial
Court framed as many as 7 issues. One of the important issue framed was
issue No. 6, whether the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to try the present F
suit. We are dismay to note that no finding has been recorded on this issue
by the Trial Court. The Trial Court, however, proceeded to examine the case
on merits, without determining the jurisdiction of the court. It is now well
established principle of law that a decree without the jurisdiction is a nullity.
Unfortunately, all the courts below including the High Court has failed to
notice this important question of law. G
We repeatedly made querry from the learned counsel for the respondent
as to whether the finding has been recorded by the Trial Court regarding the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court. We received no answer.

We have gone through the entire judgment of the trial court and there H
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] 3 S.C.R.

A is no finding to that effect. In fact, the Trial Court has considered all the 7
issues together and the finding is recorded as under:-

Issue No. 2 to 7.

"Onus to prove all these issues was upon the defendants. But
B there is no sufficient evidence led by the defendants to prove these
issues and in the lack of sufficient evidence, all these issues are
decided against the defendants."

Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of
this Court rendered in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
C and Anr. v. Krishna Kant and Ors .. [ 1995] 5 SCC 75 where this
Court in paragraph 35 (2) has held:

(2) Where, however, the dispute involves recognition, observance
or enforcement of any of the rights or obligations created by the
Industrial Disputes Act, the only remedy is to approach the forums
D created by the said Act.

Class 2 of paragraph 35, in fact, is completely against the case of the
respondent herein.

In a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road
E Transport Corpn.

and Ors. v. Zakir Hussain, (2005] 7 SCC 447 in which my brother Dr.
Justice AR. Lakshmanan was party, this Court after considering the various
Judgments including the judgment referred above, has come to the conclusion
that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such suit.
F
In the view that this Court has been taking consistently, the Civil Court
has no jurisdiction to entertain such suit and any decree passed by the Civil
Court without jurisdiction, is a nullity. The High Court has failed to notice
the position of law enunciated by this Court in catena of decisions.

G We may, at this stage, point out that this Court suspended the order of
the High Court on 4.2.2004. Despite suspending of the order of the High
Court, the respondent herein was allowed to continue to work on the plea that
interim order passed by this Court on 4.2.2004 was not received by the
concerned Department. Consequently, the respondent, herein was allowed to
H work till 14.12.2005. Since the respondent was allowed to work and he has
. _,,___

STATE OF HARYANA v. BIKAR SINGH 215
been paid salary for the period he has rendered service, we are of the view A
that so much of the salary paid to the respondent for the work he has rendered,
will not be recovered.

In the premises aforesaid this appeal is allowed. The order of the Civil
Court and the High Court are hereby quashed and are set aside. The parties
are asked to bear their own costs. · B
R.P. Appeal allowed.

-