Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal filed against judgment and decree dated 28.08.1999 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby judgment and decree dated 15.11.1990 passed by learned Additional Munsiff -cum -Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration, has been affirmed. Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration contending therein that he was working on the post of Conductor with the defendant -appellant Corporation. His services were terminated vide order dated 25.03.1987 on the allegation of his allowing four passengers without ticket in the bus of defendant Corporation. He challenged the termination order on the ground that at the time of inspection of the bus, neither bus -checking -report was prepared nor statements of the passengers, found without ticket, were recorded. The defendant Corporation did not conduct any departmental enquiry against the plaintiff nor was he provided an opportunity of hearing prior to passing of the termination order.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for defendant -appellants argued that learned trial court ought not to have entertained the suit at Jaipur because plaintiff -respondent was working at Falna Depot of the defendant Corporation, which falls within the jurisdiction of Pali District. The cause of action, if any, arisen to the plaintiff was in District Pali or Jodhpur, therefore, the learned trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. No part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. The findings recorded by learned trial court on the issue of jurisdiction was therefore perverse and erroneous. Charge against the plaintiff -respondent was for carrying passengers without ticket, which amounts to serious misconduct and thereby justified removal from service. It is argued that the civil court has no jurisdiction in such matters. It is only the industrial tribunal which has jurisdiction to entertain such matters. The plaintiff -respondent was a workman and the defendant -appellant no. 2 should have take steps to approach the appropriate government to refer the dispute to the industrial tribunal. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.S.R.T.C. and Others Vs. Deen Dayal Sharma - : (2010) 6 SCC 697.
(3.) I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for defendant -appellants and perused the material on record.;