J.S. Khehar, J. - (1.) THE facts as have been revealed in the grounds of revision as also in the impugned order of the trial Court, show that the petitioner - plaintiff was an employee of the State Bank of India and was posted in one of its branches at Amritsar. During the course of his employment, he was placed under suspension. Despite his suspension, he was not paid any subsistence allowance. He had approached the Civil Court claiming subsistence allowance. In spite of the direction issued in this behalf, he was still not paid the same. Departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner -plaintiff which culminated in an order of dismissal from service. The order of dismissal from service dated 13.9.1996 was challenged by him by filing a civil suit on 25.1.1997 wherein he impugned the order of dismissal from service asserting that the same was illegal, null and void and the violation of the Shastri award and the Desai award. He also asserted that the bipartite settlement entered into between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation, besides being void and without jurisdiction, was inoperative against the petitioner -plaintiff. On the aforesaid premises, he prayed for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits by claiming that he should be deemed to be an employee of the State Bank of India as clerk -cum -cashier by ignoring the impugned order of dismissal from service.
(2.) THE petitioner -plaintiff challenged the departmental proceedings initiated against on the following grounds : - "(i) That the petitioner -plaintiff was placed under suspension on 5.3.1988 but was not paid subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension despite judgment and decree dated 30.11.1991 of the Civil Court. He was, thus, incapacitated from defending himself in the so -called enquiry; (ii) That the charge sheet served on the petitioner was no charge sheet in the eyes of the law. No list of witnesses and documents or the statement of allegations was supplied with it. This violates the principle of natural justice; (iii) No official communication was conveyed to the petitioner regarding appointment of enquiry officer. Thus, the entire proceedings stand vitiated; (iv) That the enquiry officer did not give due and proper opportunity to the petitioner to cross -examine the prosecution witnesses and to lead his own evidence in rebuttal. This is violative of the rules of natural justice; (v) That petitioner was not supplied with a report of the enquiry officer before the impugned order of his dismissal was passed. This is clear contravention of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. (vi) That the subject -matter of enquiry was already the subject -matter of the pending criminal case instituted by the bank. Therefore, till the decision of the criminal court, the enquiry officer could not proceed and in case the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, he was entitled to reinstatement. As such, the order of dismissal dated 13.9.1996 was pre - mature." The fact that the petitioner -plaintiff is 'workman' within the meaning of section 2(s), and the fact that State Bank of India is an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has not been contested. Under Section 2(k) an industrial dispute' includes a dispute between an employer and a workman. Since the present dispute raised by the petitioner -plaintiff is with his employer, it is natural that the said dispute is an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k). In spite of the fact that the dispute between the petitioner -plaintiff and the respondents -defendants State Bank of India was an industrial dispute, he preferred a civil suit impugning the order of dismissal from service dated 13.9.1996 and claimed continuation in service as if the impugned order had never been passed.
(3.) AN application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the respondents -defendants claiming rejection of the plaint for want of jurisdiction. The trial Court vide its order dated 1.4.1998 allowed the aforesaid application and consequently the plaint filed by him was ordered to be returned to him to be presented before a proper Forum. The aforesaid order of the trial Court has been impugned in the instant civil revision.;