P.K. Lohra, J. - (1.) THE petitioner -plaintiff has laid this writ petition against the order dt. 17.12.2008 passed by the District Judge, Jaisalmer, whereby the learned District Judge, while deciding Issue Nos. 6 & 7 against him, has returned back the plaint as not maintainable. While deciding Issue Nos. 6 & 7 against the petitioner -plaintiff, the learned Court below has referred two Clauses 23 and 34 of the agreement, which was executed between the rival parties. The relevant excerpt of the agreement showing Clauses 23 and 34 of the agreement is reproduced as under: - Clause 23 (Licence under Labour Act) (a) The contractor who employees 20 or more than 20 contract labourers will take a licence under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and will abide by all its provisions. (b) Divisional Officers while passing the first running bill of the contractor will ascertain that the contractor has taken the licence under this Act and the requisite security deposited. Clause 34 (Jurisdiction of Court) In the event of any dispute arising between the parties herein to in respect of any of the matters comprised in this agreement, the same shall be settled by a competent Court having jurisdiction over the place where agreement is executed and by no other Court.
(2.) FROM a bare perusal of Clause 23 (supra), it is amply clear that it nowhere envisages reference of a dispute to a standing Committee for its settlement. On the contrary, the said clause refers to licence under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 to be obtained by the contractor. So far as Clause 34 of the agreement is concerned that refers to the jurisdiction of the Court. If Clause 34 of the agreement is properly construed, then it makes things crystal clear that the suit, which was laid by the plaintiff -petitioner, was before a competent Court having pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the same. Thus, reference of Clause 34 of the agreement for non -suiting the petitioner -plaintiff, in its pursuit and returning the plaint, is per -se erroneous and cannot be said to be a sound exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Court below. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff -petitioner has filed the suit for recovering a sum of Rs. 6,42,680/ - after paying the requisite Court Fee for which it was desirable from the learned Court below to decide the same on merits. Instead of resorting to that procedure, the learned trial Court, without any basis, while referring to Clauses 23 and 34 of the agreement, executed between the rival parties, has non -suited the petitioner and while recording the finding that the suit is premature, returned the plaint. The order on the face of it is non -est in the eye of law and cannot be sustained.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the order impugned passed by the learned District Judge, Jaisalmer is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned District Judge, Jaisalmer for deciding the suit laid by the plaintiff -petitioner afresh strictly in accordance with law. The suit was laid in the year 2007, and therefore, it is expected from the learned Court below to proceed with the trial of the suit as expeditiously as possible.;