- (1.) This judgment will dispose of the Regular Second Appeal directed against the judgment of First Appellate Court whereby it was held that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff appellant.
(2.) The facts briefly stated are that the plaintiff-appellant was a driver in the service of Haryana Roadways. His services were terminated on 21.9.1972. The order of termination was challenged in a civil suit. The trial judge dismissed the suit holding that the termination was valid. On appeal, learned Addl. Distt. Judge, reversed the judgment of the trial court with the observation that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
(3.) The approach of the learned Additional Distt. Judge is not correct. It has been settled by the Full Bench in Sukhi Ram v. State of Haryana, 1982 84 PunLR 717, that a workman has two remedies : (1) to approach the Labour Court, and (2) to approach the civil court for getting the order of termination quashed. It was held as under :- "In the light of the aforesaid discussion we would render the answer to the question as reframed (in paragraph 2 above) in the affirmative. It is held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit by a workman in connection with an industrial dispute arising of the right or liability under the general or the common law (and not under the Act), if no steps had been earlier taken by him to resort to the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act.";