- (1.) DHAN Bahadur Thapa, an ex-serviceman was employed with the petitioner-bank as an Armed Guard. He joined regular service with the petitioner w. e. f. September, 1972 after he had been declared reserve by the Army Authorities. At the time of joining service of the petitioner-bank, the respondent gave his date of birth as November 15, 1932 which finds mention in the official record. On subsequent dates also, while applying for loan facilities for house building, bicycles, allotment of house and other benefits, he always gave his date of birth as November 15, 1932. After putting a number of years of service, the respondent submitted an application that his date of birth is July 1, 1935 and not November 15, 1932 and consequently prayed that his date of birth be changed in the official record of the bank. The request was declined by observing that he himself gave his date of birth as mentioned in the official record and the date recorded therein was given by him on subsequent occasions also. Aggrieved by the rejection of his request by the petitioner, the respondent filed a suit on November 10, 1990 in the Court of Sub Judge Chandigarh where he prayed for correction of his date of birth as July 1, 1935 instead of November 15, 1932 and asked for permanent injunction against his superannuation, and claimed ancillary reliefs. It may be mentioned at this stage that there is no dispute between the parties that the respondent-workman was to retire at the age of 60 years on superannuation and that he was a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act' ).
(2.) THE petitioner joined issue, inter alia, on the question of civil court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit on she ground that it has no jurisdiction. On the pleadings of the parties, an issue was framed to the effect, whether the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred? OPD". The trial Court relying on Ishar Singh v. National Fertilizers,1 A. I. R. 1991 S. C. 1546, concluded that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This is how the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-bank.
(3.) THE challenge to the jurisdiction of civil court is on the basis of provisions of Section 2-A of the Act, on the ground that the reliefs available in the present suit could be asked for under the Industrial Disputes Act. According to the petitioner, the respondent is a workman governed by the provisions of the Act. The bipartite settlement governs and controls all the employees of the petitioner Company including the respondent. There is no dispute about this fact and the one that bipartite settlement has force of law. This settlement provides the age of superannuation of Armed Guards at the age of 60 years. On these premises, it is submitted that by filing the present suit, the. respondent not only seeks declaration for correction of his date of birth but also as a consequential relief for remaining in service upto July 1, 1995. According to the petitioner-bank, a right to remain in service upto that date is not a common law right, it having been specifically conferred by bipartite settlement, a special law governing the conditions of service of the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that superannuation in accordance with the bipartite settlement at the age of 60 years has been challenged by the respondent in the suit in the garb of declaration for changing his date of birth and grant of consequential benefits would squarely fall under the Act, and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon Jitendra Nath Biswas v. M/s Empire of India and Ceylone Tea, 2 A. I. R. 1990 S. C. 255 and V. A. Damodaran v. E. I. D. Parry (India) Ltd. , 3 1992 (1) L. L. J. 886.;