HINDUSTAN TIMES LTD Vs. ASHOK VYAS
LAWS(GJH)-2005-10-66
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on October 26,2005

HINDUSTAN TIMES LTD Appellant
VERSUS
ASHOK VYAS Respondents




JUDGEMENT

C.K.BUCH - (1.)This petition was listed for admission hearing. However, the parties have supplied detailed set of documents and since the litigation is pending since 1996, at the joint request of ld. Counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed of finally at an admission stage.
(2.)The petitioner Hindustan Times Ltd., invoking jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has assailed legality and validity of the order passed by ld. 6th Addl. Senior Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gandhinagar below application Exh.75 in Regular Civil Suit No. 65/1996 and prayed for issuance of appropriate writ, direction or order for quashing and setting aside the said order dated 24.06.2005, being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled legal position. It is further prayed that this Court should allow application exh.75 holding that the Civil Court or at least Civil Court at Gandhinagar has jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit/dispute under adjudication.
(3.)It is contended that the respondent on the date of filing of the suit was undisputedly a Special Correspondent in Hindustan Times Ltd. having his Head Quarter at Gandhinagar and has served the petitioner company for about three decades. The gist of the petition is that the order under challenge requires to be quashed because the ld. Lower Court has erroneously held that the preliminary issue raised by the petitioner is not required to be heard as a preliminary issue in reference to the statutory bar under the Scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the I.D.Act), especially when the respondent plaintiff is a workman within the meaning of section 2(f) of the the Working Journalist & Other Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service) and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). The relevant provisions of the Act on which the petitioner has placed reliance has been reproduced by him in para-3(d) of the petition and it is submitted that it is crystal clear that only Labour Court will have jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute raised by the respondent plaintiff in the suit instituted by him in the year 1996. The jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred and on account of the provisions of section 3(1) of the Act R/w section 25-FF of the I.D.Act, the lower Court ought to have held that issue as to the jurisdiction framed requires to be heard as preliminary issue before recording formal oral evidence on all the issues and/or dealing with other issues framed in the suit on the strength of the pleading of the parties. The second main submission raised before the Court by the petitioner is that the Court at Delhi only would have territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit and the civil Court at Gandhinagar has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit. So, the issue as to territorial jurisdiction also should have been heard as a preliminary issue. That the ld. Judge has failed in not doing so and in rejecting the application exh.75. It is necessary to state in brief some basic facts leading to the civil suit and in turn the present petition. (i) The respondent plaintiff of the suit got employment in the petitioner company. That when he was a Special Correspondent of Gujarat having H.Q. at Gandhinagar, respondent came to be chargesheeted on 10.11.10095 for the alleged irregularities and willful neglects in duty committed by him and thereafter, after holding inquiry, the respondent came to be dismissed from service on 31.10.1996. Respondent, therefore, challenged the said decision of dismissal by filing Regular Civil Suit No.65/1996 in the Court of ld. Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhinagar for declaration and injunction seeking reinstatement in service. The respondent also filed an application exh.5 under O.39 R.1 & 2 R/w section 151 of CPC for interim injunction. After hearing the parties, the ld. Civil Judge dismissed the application for interim injunction and that decision was assailed by him by filing an Appeal from Order under O.43 R.1(8) of CPC before the District Court. The ld. Extra Asstt. Judge, Gandhinagar video order dated 30.04.1998, allowed the appeal by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the ld. Civil Judge dismissing the application exh.5 and granted interim relief pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit. The petitioner company challenged the order passed by the appellate Court before this Court by filing Civil Revision Application No.893/1988. This Court, ultimately, quashed and set aside the order passed by the appellate Court. However, revisional court directed the trial court to proceed with the matter and decide the same as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law. The ld. Single Judge (Coram: Kundan Singh, j), while allowing the above-numbered CRA, has considered various aspects and one of the aspect considered by the ld. Single Judge is that on the date of hearing, the respondent was already superannuated at the age of 58 years on 10th October, 1997 under the terms and conditions of contract entered into between the parties. It is necessary to reproduce some observations made and findings recorded by the ld. Single Judge:- It is true that the dismissal order was passed on 31.1.1996 and that was communicated to the respondent on 17.2.1996. Admittedly, the suit was filed on 19.3.1996 and the ex-parte interim injunction order was passed on the same day and after hearing both the parties, the application exh.5 filed by the respondent was rejected on 31.11.1996. Whether the suit is maintainable at Gandhinagar Court has to be determined by the Court at the relevant time after giving reasonable opportunity of leading evidence and hearing to the parties concerned. At this stage, it can not be said that the trial Court has or has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the suit. The question as to whether civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the suit filed by the respondent or jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, can also be decided after hearing of the suit. This Court can not decide without having sufficient material on record on this point. But from the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that the dismissal order was passed on 31.1.1996 which was communicated to the respondent on 17.2.1996 and the suit was filed after delay of 1 months i.e. on 19.3.1996 and after 2 months from the date of dismissal of the respondent from service, the dismissal order was served and therefore interim injunction can not be passed directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service..... It has been further observed that:- Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the respondent has already been superannuated at the age of 58 years on 10.10.1997 under the terms and conditions of the contract entered into between the parties, the respondent was entitled to continue in service superannuation age of 58 years or 30 years' service whichever is earlier. Accordingly, 30 years' service can be said to have been completed on 20.5.1997. Even if it is assumed that the order of dismissal of the respondent from service is illegal, the respondent would be entitled to his remuneration etc. till 22.3.1997. The petitioner has deposited the amount as per the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in the contempt proceedings. But the payment of the respondent was stayed by this Court. The Registry of this Court is directed to remit the amount deposited in this Court by the petitioner to the trial Court where the respondent will file statement of his claim regarding his emoluments for the period from the date of dismissal i.e. 31.1.1996 till 22.5.1997. After such statement is filed by the respondent, the trial Court after verifying the statement presented by the respondent, will pay the same to the respondent on furnishing the solvent security. The rest of the amount will be returned to the petitioner. The trial Court is further directed to proceed with the matter and decide the same as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made in this judgment.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.