SHARMA, J. - (1.) HAVING heard the submissions and on scanning the material on record I am satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the instant matter.
(2.) CONTEXTUAL fact depict that the plaintiff respondent (for short `plaintiff') instituted civil suit with the averments that he was working in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short `rsrtc') on the post of LDC for which he was being paid a meager sum Rs. 2100/- per month. Despite the fact that he discharged duties 8 hours a day while other co-employees were working in all 6. 30 hours per day while he was not being given the benefits of gazetted holidays, second saturday and other holidays admissible under the Rules. A prayer, therefore, was made for a declaration to the effect that the plaintiff was entitled to gazetted holidays including second saturdays and other holidays. Defendant appellant submitted written statement stating therein that the service condition of the plaintiff were governed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers & Workshop Employees Standing Order 1965 (for short `standing Orders'), therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief sought for. As many as six issues were framed by learned Additional Munsif Magistrate Ajmer City (West), while have been incorporated in the impugned judgment. Learned Munsif Magistrate vide judgment and decree dated November 17, 1990 decreed the suit. Defendant appellants preferred first appeal against the judgment and decree, but the appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated August 2, 2000. Against the said concurrent finding arrived at by both the courts below, that the defendant appellants have preferred the instant second appeal. Mr. Virendra Lodha, learned counsel for the appellants canvassed that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain suit instituted by the plaintiff. Although no issue in this regard was framed by learned trial Court, however, I permitted to raise this submission in the instant second appeal. It is contended by Mr. Lodha that the service of plaintiff is governed by section 9 of Standing Orders, therefore the civil suit instituted by him was not maintainable. Reliance is placed on RSRTC vs. Krishna Kant (1995) 5 SCC 75 and RSRTC vs. Zakair Hussam JT 2005 (7) 512 = 2005 (4) RLW 2512 (SC ). Three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke (AIR 1975 SC 2238) after elaborate discussion held as under:- " (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 33 C or the raising of an industrial dispute, as the case may be. " Ratio indicated in The Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke (supra) was again considered in Chandrakarn Takaram Nikam vs. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad (AIR 2002 SC 997) and held as under:- "the Industrial Disputes Act is enacted by the Parliament to prove speedy, inexpensive and effect forum for resolution of disputes arising between workmen and the employers, the underlying idea being to ensure that the workmen does not get caught in the labyrinth of Civil Court which the workmen can ill- afford. The procedure followed by Civil Courts are too lengthy and consequently, is not an efficacious forum for resolving Industrial Disputes speedily. The power of Industrial Courts also is wide and such forums are empowered to grant adequate relief as they think just and appropriate. It is in the interest of the workmen that their disputes, including the dispute of illegal termination are adjudicated upon by an industrial forum. The legality of order of termination passed by the employer will be an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2 (k) and under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, every Award of Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal or National is required to be published by the appropriate Government within a period of thirty days from the date of its receipt and such Award published under sub section (1) of Section 17 is held to be final. "
(3.) IN RSRTC vs. Zakir Hussain (supra) Two Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the object of INdustrial Disputes Act and observed in para 30 thus:- "30. Learned counsel for the respondent placing strong reliance on the judgment in RSRTC vs. Krishna Kant and others (supra) submitted that since the decree has been passed by the trial Court on 28. 7. 1989 and the appeal filed by the Corporation was dismissed on 27. 9. 1989 which was pending prior to the judgment reported in 1995 SCR (3) 1118, the respondent is right is approaching the civil court. This contention has no force,. This Court has very explicity summarised the principles flowing from the discussion in the judgment in para 35 and applying the above the principles this Court has categorically held that the suit filed by the employees in those appeals were not maintainable in law But, however, granted certain reliefs by reducing the back wages etc. etc in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, in our opinion, the above judgment will not be of any assistance or aid to the claim of the respondent. " In the instance case underiably the suit was filed on June 2, 1989 when the ratio indicated in The Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke (supra) was in force. Therefore, I hold that in view of the ratio indicated in The Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke (supra) the suit instituted by the plaintiff was maintainable and now after 16 years it cannot be held that in view of the subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the suit was incompetent. In Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs. Savitribai Sopan Gurjar (1999) 3 SCC 722, their Lordships of Supreme Court indicated that in second appeal concurrent finding of facts howsoever erroneous cannot be disturbed by the High Court in exercise of the powers under Section 100 of CPC. ;