Jurisdictional Objection in Termination Cases

Explore the intricate legal analysis provided by the court in a recent case concerning jurisdictional objections in termination cases. The court delved into the question of whether a civil court has the authority to adjudicate claims under the Industrial Disputes Act, ultimately clarifying the status of decrees issued without jurisdiction. Discover the key insights from this significant legal ruling.

Facts

• The High Court held that the civil court lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit based on the ID Act.
• The judgment and decree passed by the civil court were considered nullity.
• The decree in favour of the plaintiff was upheld by rejecting the jurisdictional objection raised by the Board.
• The Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff on the jurisdiction issue.
• The Revision petition filed by the judgment debtor was allowed, setting aside the decree in favour of the plaintiff.
• A plea on absence of jurisdiction can be raised even at the stage of execution proceedings.
• Reference was made to Section 25B and 25F of the ID Act regarding the termination of the plaintiff’s service without statutory compliance.
• The Board challenged the executing court’s order in Civil Revision No 16/2006, contending that the civil court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate claims under the ID Act.
• It was noted that the plea of the decree being a nullity can also be raised at the stage of execution.
• The appellant was a daily wage employee under the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board.
• The appellant claimed to have rendered uninterrupted service for 2778 days and asserted the right to be regularized after completion of 240 days of continuous service.
• The Board challenged the decision in Civil Suit No. 100 of 1985 before the District Judge, Dharamshala by filing Civil Appeal No. 123/1988.
• The appellant responded to an appointment offer by giving a joining report on 1.9.2001 but the report was not acted upon by the management due to various conditions.

Also Read: Insurance Claim Repudiation due to Fire Incident: Court’s Legal Analysis

Arguments

• The petitioners argued that the maintainability of the challenge in Revision before the High Court by the judgment debtor was questioned by the terminated employee.
• It was contended that the plea of absence of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage and the present decree is considered a legal nullity, citing Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. vs Mohar Singh.
• The civil court did not have jurisdiction to entertain a claim based on the ID Act, as per the judgments in Rajasthan SRTC & Ors. vs Khadarmal and Rajasthan SRTC & Anr. vs. Ugma Ram Choudhry.
• If a decree is passed by the court without jurisdiction, it shall have no force of law.
• The appellant’s counsel argued that even when relief is claimed based on the provisions of the ID Act, the jurisdiction of the civil court is not entirely barred.
• The appellant’s counsel also challenged the intervention of the High Court against the decree holder, claiming that the appellant rendered service as a daily wager since 11.12.1976 and termination should have followed due process.
• The decree holder pointed out that concurrent findings are recorded in favor of the plaintiff.
• The counsel for the respondent Board argues that the civil court has no jurisdiction when the relief sought is based on the Industrial Disputes Act.
• The respondent’s counsel asserts that a decree issued by a court without jurisdiction is considered a nullity.
• It is further argued that no relief can be claimed based on a void decree according to the respondent’s argument.
• The counsel for the respondent reiterates the points made before the High Court in support of the impugned judgment.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Right to Privacy in Pregnancy: Examining the Inviolable Nature of the Human Personality

Analysis

• Jurisdictional objection raised by the employer was framed against the defendant.
• Litigant has the option to choose between civil court or industrial forum for common law remedy.
• Industrial courts have limited jurisdiction in service matters.
• Civil court may not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on orders passed by disciplinary authority.
• ID Act provides a wider definition of ‘termination of service’.
• Appellant based claim on provisions of ID Act, enabling employer to raise jurisdictional objection.
• Cited cases pertained to employees under Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation.
• Three-judge Bench ruled that civil court has no jurisdiction in termination of service cases.
• Higher court overturned lower court’s decision, declaring decree in favor of plaintiff as nullity.
• Court referred to two earlier decisions in Rajasthan SRTC vs. Krishna Kant and Rajasthan SRTC vs Zakir Hussain, stating that when civil court lacks jurisdiction, decrees passed in those proceedings hold no legal force.
• In Ugma Ram Choudhry case, the court based its decision on equitable principles, highlighting that back wages already disbursed to a terminated employee should not be recovered from them due to the challenge being grounded on provisions of the ID Act.
• Civil court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a suit based on the Industrial Disputes Act.
• The decree in favor of the plaintiff is considered as a legal nullity.
• The High Court’s finding on the decree is upheld.
• The dismissal of the appeal due to lack of merit.
• The arrear sum paid to the terminated employee as per the court’s decree should not be recovered.

Also Read: Supreme Court Judgment on Suretech Hospital Medical Negligence Case: A Tale of Negligence and Unnecessary Risk-Taking

Decision

• Background and context of the case
• Arguments presented by both parties
• Analysis of legal issues raised
• Decision of the court
• Reasoning provided for the decision

Case Title: MILKHI RAM Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (2021 INSC 638)

Case Number: C.A. No.-001346-001346 / 2010

Click here to read/download original judgement