S P B P TEA INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. DESOUZA I P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 11.5.93. passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Tezpur in Title Suit No. 3 of 1991 staying further proceeding of the said suit.

(2.) The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and carries on business of plantation and manufacture of tea amongst others at Durrung Tea Estate in the District of Sonitpur, Assam. The opposite party was appointed as a Pharmacist in the Durrung Tea Estate of the petitioner on probation for a period of six months by letter dated 1.2.90. He was allotted a quarter in the said Tea Estate as an incidence of his service. However, the service of the opposite party was terminated by letter dated 30.7.90 with effect from 1.8.90 and he was asked to vacant the quarter. As the petitioner failed to vacate the quarter in spite of repeated notices, the petitioner company filed a suit (Title Suit No. 3/91) in the Court of the Assistant District Judge, Tezpur for khas possession of the quarter by evicting the opposite party. The opposite party contested the suit and filed his written statement and made counter claim before the trial Court. The opposite party also filed an application praying for ad-interim injunction. Opposite party in his counter claim also prayed for declaring him to be in continuous employment as a confirmed employee of the tea estate. He further stated that a conciliation proceeding in respect of his dismissal is pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Zone-Ill, Tezpur. The petitioner filed a written statement against the prayer of the opposite party stating that the allegations raised in the counter claim being within the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. It was further stated that no conciliation proceeding is pending before any forum and even if any conciliation is pending there is no bar in filing the eviction suit as he was occupying the quarter as an incidence of his employment. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court stayed the proceedings of the said title suit. Hence the present petition.

(3.) I heared Mr. S. N. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.C. Khetri, learned counsel for the opposite party.