PARIHAR, J. - (1.) SUIT for declaration filed by the plaintiff-respondent had been party decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 8. 8. 2006. The plea of loss alleged by the appellant corporation was not accepted by the trial Court. Only a ticket book had been lost by the plaintiff-respondent, however, there was no allegation that the ticket book so lost had subsequently been used in any fraudulent manner causing loss to the corporation in any manner. The trial Court however gave liberty to the appellant corporation to recover the amount of printing expenses of the ticket book so lost from the plaintiff- respondent. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has further been affirmed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 25. 10. 2007.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant corporation submitted that the plaintiff respondent been a workman could only raise an industrial dispute before appropriate forum and civil Court had no jurisdiction in the present matter. The plea so taken by the counsel is not tenable. Considering the nature of punishment imposed the plaintiff respondent, may be a workmen, of his own could not have raised the dispute. In such circumstances the workman can not be left at the mercy of a union, to spouse or raise his dispute under provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Not having efficacious alternative remedy under the Act of 1947, civil Court is the only forum where he could agitate his grievance. After having carefully gone through the material on record, since on the basis of concurrent findings of fact, after due consideration proper discretion has been used by both the courts below, I find no ground for any further interference of this Court, moreso, when no other substantial question of law is involved. The appeal is dismissed accordingly as having no merits. .;