S.N.Variava, P.K.Balasubramanyan, P.P.Naolekar, JJ. - (1.) In all these ease some of the questions for consideration is whether a Civil Court have jurisdiction or whether the termination of service of a probationer was required to be challenged by raising a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act.This question is now squarely covered by the decisions of this Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Kant 1995 (71) FLR 211 (SC), well as in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Zakir Hussain 2005 (107) FLR 106 (SC). It has been held that the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction. As these judgments are binding on us, we also hold that in all these matters the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate.
(2.) It is however submitted, based on the following observations in the first Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation 1995 (71) FLR 211 (SC) : 1995 (2) LLN 271, case (vide supra) in para. 36, at page 285: Applying the above principles, we must hold that the suits filed by the respondents in these appeals were not maintainable in law. Even so, the question is whether we should set aside the decrees passed in their favour by the Civil Courts. So far as Civil Appeal No. 3100 of 1991 is concerned, this Court had, while granting leave (in S.L.P. (C) No. 194 of 1991) ordered on 29 January, 1991 that in so far as respondent is concerned, he (appellants Counsel) states that he will abide by the decree. Application for stay is rejected. Therefore, there is no question of setting aside the decree concerned in this appeal. However, so far as the other appeals are concerned, the position is slightly different. In Civil Appeal No. 4948 of 1991 and in Civil Appeals Nos. 5386, 5387 of 1995 arising out of S.L.Ps. (C) Nos. 10902 of 1992, 13152 and 10263 of 1993, not only is there no such condition but this Court had granted stay as prayed for by the appellant-Corporation. In two other matters, viz. in Civil Appeal No. 9314 of 1994 and Civil Appeal No. 5389 of 1995 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14169 of 1993 the Only order is to issue notice. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of these matters, we modify the decrees in these matters (except the decree concerned in Civil Appeal No. 3100 of 1991) by reducing the back-wages to half. The decrees in all other respects are left undisturbed. These orders are made in view of the fact that the position of law was not clear until now and it cannot be said that the respondents had not acted bona fide in instituting, the suits. Appeals disposed of accordingly.
(3.) It is submitted that all the suits in these matters were filed at a time when the position of law was not clear, It is submitted that therefore even in these cases the Court should not interfere with the decrees but may direct that there shall be no payment of back-wages.;