JAIN, J. - (1.) NONE present on behalf of the plaintiff- respondent in spite of service of notice on him.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the defendant-appellants. Plaintiff-respondent Bhanwar Lal filed a suit for declaration to declare the order dated 5. 3. 1982, terminating his services from the post of Driver, the order dated 2. 12. 1983 of the appellate authority dismissing his appeal against the order dated 5. 3. 1982, and the order dated 3. 7. 1985 of the reviewing authority, as illegal, unconstitutional and void, and to decree his suit for reinstatement with all consequential benefits. Defendant-appellants filed their written statement wherein, apart from other submissions, they raised an objection to the effect that the plaintiff-respondent is a workman and the present dispute is an industrial dispute, therefore, the civil court has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the civil suit, and only remedy available to the plaintiff is to approach the Labour Court, who has got jurisdiction in this matter under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The lower Court framed four issues. Issue No. 2 was `as to whether the civil court has got jurisdiction to hear the present suit?' Both the parties led their evidence and after hearing the arguments from both the sides, the lower court, vide judgment and decree dated 15. 2. 1991 partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff- respondent. The issue No. 2 was decided against the defendant. The order dated 5. 3. 1982, terminating the services of the plaintiff-respondent, was declared null and void, and it was directed that the plaintiff-respondent will be reinstated on his post and he will be entitled to his salary from the date of his joining.
(3.) BEING aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 15. 2. 1991 passed by the learned lower Court, two appeals were preferred before the lower appellate Court by both the parties. The plaintiff was aggrieved with the judgment of the lower Court in not awarding him the backwages from the date of order of his termination, whereas the defendants were aggrieved with the judgment of the lower court whereby it declares the order of termination of the plaintiff as illegal. The lower appellate Court, vide its common judgment and decree dated 27. 11. 1997, allowed the appeal of the plaintiff and dismissed the appeal of the defendants, and decreed the suit of the plaintiff in toto, directing the defendant Corporation to pay all arrears of back- wages to the plaintiff workman from the date of order of his termination i. e. 5. 3. 1982. Hence, these two appeals have been preferred by the defendants-appellants, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court, vide its orders dated 1. 5. 1998 (in second appeal No. 125/1998) and 16. 9. 1998 (in second appeal No. 123/1988), issued notices of these appeals to the plaintiff-respondent to show cause as to why these appeals be not admitted and finally disposed of at the admission stage itself, and stayed execution of the judgments and decrees dated 15th of February, 1991 of the lower court and dated 27th of November, 1997 of the lower appellate Court, for a period of eight weeks. However, no one is present on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, in spite of service of notices of the appeals on him. A substantial question of law is involved in these appeals, which is formulated as under:- Whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit for reinstatement filed by the plaintiff-workman? ;