S.N.BHARGAVA, J. - (1.) THIS is plaintiff's first appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Beawar, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.
(2.) PLAINTIFF was appointed as a Conductor in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'corporation'), on 23. 3. 1976. While discharging his duties as a Conductor, he was given three charge-sheets dated 29. 10. 82, 18. 6. 83 and 16. 12. 1983 because some passengers were found without ticket in the bus when a checking was made. An enquiry was held by Shri K. N. Mathur, Depot Manager who found the appellant guilty, and on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the plaintiff-appellant was removed from service by an order dated 9. 3. 1984. The plaintiff preferred an appeal but the same was also dismissed on 31. 5. 1984. Thereafter, he filed the suit, out of which the present appeal has arisen, for declaration that order of his removal was illegal, unconstitutional and was passed without following the principles of natural justice and hence, was null and void. It was further prayed that the plaintiff may be declared to be in continuous service and entitled to all the benefits. The plaintiff also averred in the plaint that copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to him even though the disciplinary authority had placed reliance on the same, which clearly amounted to violation of the principles of natural justice. The suit was contested by the defendants. It was asserted on behalf of the defendants that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice and full opportunity was given to the plaintiff to defend himself and no material prejudice has been caused to him. There is no specific denial of the fact that the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues: The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1. The defendants did not lead any oral evidence. Documents have been filed by both the parties. Learned trial court decided Issues No. 1, 3 and 4 in favour of the defendants and dismissed the suit. It is against this judgment that the present first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the decision of the trial court on Issue No. 2 is erroneous in view of the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Jitendra Nath Biswas V. M/s. Empire of India and Ceylone Tea Co. (1) wherein a bench of two Judges has held that a suit for declaration that the dismissal of the plaintiff from service, was bad and void, for back wages and seeking a relief of reinstatement, is not maintainable before the civil court and therefore, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that in view of the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the above case, I am not bound by the decision of the division bench rendered in Kalu Ram's case. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has very vehemently submitted that the decision of the trial court on Issue No. 2 is perfectly correct and in accordance with the views of the Supreme Court and the decision by a Division Bench of this Court. To support his argument, he has placed reliance on Premier Automobiles V. K. S. Wadke (2) wherein a three Judges' Bench has enumerated the following principles applicable to the jurisdiction of the civil court in relation to an industrial dispute : " (1) If the dispute is not an industrial dispute, nor does it relate to enforcement of any other right under the Act the remedy lies only in the Civil Court. (2) If the dispute is an industrial dispute arising out of a right or liability under the general common law and not under the Act, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is alternative, leaving it to the election of the suitor concerned to choose his remedy for the relief which is competent to be granted in a particular remedy. (3) If the industrial dispute relates to the enforcement of a right or an obligation created under the Act, then the only remedy available to the suitor is to get an adjudication under the Act. (4) If the right which is sought to be enforced is a right created under the Act such as Chapter VA then the remedy for its enforcement is either Section 33c or the raising of an industrial dispute, as the case may be. "
(3.) THIS authority of Premier Automobile's case (supra) was followed by a bench consisting of three Judges in Rohitash Industries Ltd. V. Its Union (3) In Sudhir Chandra Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. (4), a bench consisting of three Judges has held that jurisdiction lies in the civil court for recovering gratuity. A two Judges' bench of the Supreme Court again in Ram Kumar V. State of Haryana (5) has held that a suit against an illegal termination of service of a Bus Conductor could be entertained by the Civil Court. Another bench of two Judges, in Prathma Bank V. Vijay Kumar (6) has held that a civil suit lies for reinstatement with back wages. My attention has also been drawn to another decision (by two Judges) in U. P. S. R. T. C. V. Muniruddin (7) wherein a Bus Conductor in U. P. S. R. T. C. was dismissed as a result of disciplinary enquiry after a trap was laid against him. The delinquent filed a suit questioning his dismissal. The trial court dismissed the suit and the appeal was also dismissed but the High Court in second appeal set aside the order of dismissal since principles of natural justice were not followed. The order of the High Court was confirmed by the Supreme Court. As fat as this Court is concerned, this matter was referred to Division Bench in the case of R. S. R. T. C. V. Kaluram (8) wherein the division bench of this Court relying on Premier Automobile's case (supra) and other cases, held that the jurisdiction of the civil court is not barred. ;