NISHA GUPTA,J. - (1.) THE instant civil second appeal has been preferred against the against the judgment and decree dated 16/11/1999 passed by the court of Additional District Judge No.8, Jaipur City, Jaipur by which the appellate court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendant -appellants and upheld the judgment and decree dated 09/08/1990 passed by the court of Additional Munsiff -cum -Judicial Magistrate No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur by which, the trial court has decreed the suit for declaration in favour of the plaintiff -respondent.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this civil second appeal in brief are that plaintiff -respondent filed a civil suit with the contention that he was appointed on the post of Conductor vide office order No.Estt./Con./64/2 under panel 21 and he joined his service on 21/07/1984. He worked satisfactorily with devotion but his services have been terminated in March, 1985 on the ground that his services are no more required. Thereafter, he has been reinstated on 04/06/1985. Again, his services have been terminated finally vide order dated 26/05/1986 and a false remark has been affixed in his service book and without enquiry and on the said remark, his services have been terminated, which is against the principles of natural justice. Defendant -appellants filed written statement that civil court has no jurisdiction as plaintiff is a workman and his services were no more required in the Corporation hence, he has been terminated under Section 35 of the Standing Orders. Both the courts below have held that the termination is not simplicitor and on the misconduct, the workman cannot be terminated without any enquiry and following the principles of natural justice. Hence, this appeal.
(3.) THE contention of the appellants is that civil court has no jurisdiction in the matter as the respondent was workman. Both the courts below have held that the workman has two options to invoke the jurisdiction under the civil law and also under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and when option of civil court has been exercised, there is no infirmity in the same and reliance has been placed on the judgments in RSRTC and Ors. Vs. Mohar Singh, 2008 5 SCC 542 and RSRTC Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa,2009 2 LLN 437. The contention of the respondent is that he is working satisfactorily from last twenty five years. On this count alone, the appeal should have been dismissed.;