- (1.) Delay condoned.
(2.) One of the questions raised in these appeals is whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondent for setting aside an order of termination and for consequential declarations. This question is no longer res integra. This Court in Rajasthan SRTC V/s. Krishna Kant and in Rajasthan SRTC V/s. Zakir Hussain and in an unreported order of this Court dated 6.10.2005 in Rajasthan SRTC V/s. Khadarmal has held that a civil court has no jurisdiction. In view of these decisions, it has to be held that the civil court has no jurisdiction to grant a relief of reinstatement and the consequential reliefs. Thus, the orders passed are without jurisdiction and are hereby set aside.
(3.) Reliance was placed upon para 37 of the judgment in Krishna Kant case which reads as follows: "37. It is directed that the principles enunciated in this judgment shall apply to all pending matters except where decrees have been passed by the trial court and the matters are pending in appeal or second appeal, as the case may be. All suits pending in the trial court shall be governed by the principles enunciated herein - as also the suits and proceedings to be instituted hereinafter." It was submitted that even in this case the suit was filed much before this judgment was delivered. It was submitted that the decree had also been passed before this judgment was delivered. It was submitted that this Court should also hold that the decree is not affected by the judgment of this Court.;