- (1.) The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants under Section 115 of CPC challenging the order dated 21.8.12 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 401/09, whereby the trial court has rejected the application of the petitioners seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
(2.) It appears that the respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit before the trial court challenging the termination order passed against him by the petitioners-defendants on the ground that the order was passed in violation of the rules and regulations framed by the petitioners and in violation of principles of natural justice. In the said suit the petitioners-defendants had filed the application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that the court did not have the jurisdiction as the dispute between the parties was an industrial dispute, which could be decided by the Labour Court and not by the civil court. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court vide the impugned judgment, against which the present revision petition has been filed.
(3.) The learned senior counsel Mr. J.K. Singhi for the petitioners relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Deendayal Sharma, 2010 6 SCC 697 submitted that when the infringement of standing orders is alleged in the plaint, the civil courts jurisdiction would be barred. Taking the court to the contents of the plaint, the learned counsel Mr. Singhi has submitted that the plaintiff having alleged violation of standing orders and the rules framed by the RSRTC, which is an industrial unit, the dispute could not be decided by the civil court.;