[2025:RJ-JP:23489] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 96/2000 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur 2. Divisional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Kota 3. General Manager, Traffic, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur ----Appellants-Defendants Versus Bharat Bhushan Sharma son of Shri Brijlal Sharma, Ex- conductor, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jhalawar Depot, resident of Shaheed Colony, Power House Road, Byawara District Rajgarh (M.P.) ----Respondent-Plaintiff For Appellant(s) : Mr. Surendar Meel For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.L. Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Judgment 08/05/2025 1. The instant second appeal is preferred by the appellants- defendants aggrieved from judgment dated 29.10.1999 in Civil Regular Appeal No.311/1995 titled as Bharat Bhushan Sharma Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur and Ors. passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby an appeal preferred by the respondent-plaintiff was allowed and following decree was passed:- “1- ;g ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd oknh dk lsok izFkDdj.k vkns”k fnukad 30-09-85 voS/k o “kwU; gS ,oa oknh izfroknh fuxe dh lsok esa ifjpkyd ds in ij cus jgus dk vf/kdkjh gSA 2- oknh izfroknh ls okn izLrqr djus dh frFk 25-10- 1988 ls os leLr osru laca/kh ykHk izkIr djus dk [2025:RJ-JP:23489] (2 of 7) [CSA-96/2000] vf/kdkjh gS tks oknh izfroknh fuxe dh lsok esa cus jgus ij izkIr djrkA 3- vihy dk O;; i{kdkj viuk viuk ogu djsaxsA” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No.1534/1988 before learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur for declaratory relief stating inter alia that he was initially appointed as Conductor on permanent basis by appellants-defendants and all of sudden he is discharged from his duties and services were dispensed with by an order dated 30.09.1985. The plaintiffs has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority but same was also dismissed on 17.10.1986. The plaintiff has prayed for declaration of termination order as null and void with direction to reinstate him in service with consequential benefits. The defendants have filed a reply denying the allegations and raising objections about maintainability of civil suit and limitation etc. The trial Court has framed as many as five issues on basis of pleadings of the parties. PW-1 Bharat Bhushan (plaintiff) examined himself whereas S.K. Jeni (DW-1) was examined by appellants-defendants. 3. The trial Court has decided issue Nos.1 and 4 against the plaintiff and found that the suit is barred by law of limitation and the plaintiff is not entitled for any declaratory relief. Issue Nos.2 and 3 were decided against the defendants. Ultimately, the suit of plaintiff was dismissed. Aggrieved from dismissal of civil suit, the plaintiff-respondent has filed an appeal under Section 96 of CPC and after considering the facts of the case on basis of law, the Appellate Court has allowed the appeal while deciding issues 4 in favour of plaintiff. As a result, the plaintiff was reinstated with consequential benefits. [2025:RJ-JP:23489] (3 of 7) [CSA-96/2000] 4. Aggrieved from impugned order dated 29.10.1999 in first appeal, the instant second appeal is preferred and on 10.07.2006, this appeal was admitted on following substantial question of law:- “Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff, who is workman?” 5. Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that the plaintiff has filed a civil suit with the averment that he was appointed as Conductor in appellant-Corporation and his services were terminated without following process and the order of termination was passed on 30.09.1985 and the Appellate Authority has passed the order dated 17.10.1986. He submitted that the suit is preferred in 1988 and the order dated 30.09.1985 can be challenged within a period of three years. He further submitted that the trial Court has framed an issue on ground of limitation and this issue is decided in favour of appellants-defendants. He submitted that the Appellate Court without considering that the order in question was passed in year 1985 and declaratory suit was not filed within a period of three years and decided issue against the plaintiff but the Appellate Court without going through correct legal position has reversed the findings. He further submitted that the plaintiff is a workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’) and the applicable law is Standing Order (S.O.) made by the appellants-defendants, thus the Civil Court has committed serious illegality and perversity by invoking jurisdiction of Civil Court. He submitted that the jurisdiction of Civil Court does not arise at all and the Appellate Court while [2025:RJ-JP:23489] (4 of 7) [CSA-96/2000] traveling beyond authority under Section 96 of CPC has committed grave error while deciding all issues in favour of plaintiff. At last, he submitted that as per S.O. and the Act of 1947, the jurisdiction to entertain present dispute is with the Industrial and Labour Tribunal but not with the Civil Court. 6. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff and he submitted that after a Larger Bench decision in case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa : (2009) 4 SCC 299, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in cases relating to violation of principles of natural justice, the jurisdiction of Civil Court is not completely barred rather the principles of natural justice must be complied while conducting any departmental inquiry. He further submitted that instant second appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC and Hon’ble Supreme Court placed restrictions under Section 100 of CPC for entertaining second appeal. He also submitted that this Hon’ble Court has framed only one substantial question of law while entertaining the second appeal and same is answered in multiple cases. At last, he submitted that respondent-plaintiff has already superannuated after attaining the age of superannuation and suffering from several diseases but still facing consequences for last more than 35 years. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record and also considered the judgment as referred by learned counsel for the respondent. 8. While admitting the instant second appeal, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has framed only one substantial question of [2025:RJ-JP:23489] (5 of 7) [CSA-96/2000] law. Section 100 of CPC provides that a second appeal can be entertained only when it give rise to substantial question of law. The substantial question of law as framed by this Court clearly reflects that the objection or the ground of second appeal, considered by this Court was only relating to jurisdiction of Civil Court in entertaining a Civil Suit or First Appeal under Section 96 of CPC. 9. A Civil Suit was filed before the Civil Court under Order VII Rule 1 CPC alleging that the order of punishment passed in a departmental inquiry by the appellants-defendants suffers from illegality as the same is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. This issue was considered by a three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa (supra) and it has observed that a Civil Court has a limited jurisdiction to entertain a Civil Suit, where there is ground and allegations relates to violation of principle of natural justice in the departmental enquiry. 10. In case of Sau Rajani Vs. Sau Smita: 2022 SCC Online SC 1016, Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the judgment of Dhulabhai vs. State of M.P. : AIR 1969 SC 78, wherein the Constitution Bench in respect of bar of jurisdiction to try suit of civil nature under Section 9 of CPC has observed that where the statute gives a finality to the orders of special tribunals created under the said statute, then, jurisdiction of civil court must be held to be excluded but where there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the Scheme of the particular act to file the intendment becomes necessary and the result of [2025:RJ-JP:23489] (6 of 7) [CSA-96/2000] enquiry may be decisive. Thus, an exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court is not readily to be inferred unless the conditions as set down apply. Again while referring the judgment in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa (supra) further observed that there is a presumption that a civil court has a jurisdiction. 11. In case of Sau Rajani Vs. Sau Smita (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in cases where the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred by a statute, the test is to determine if the authority or tribunal constituted under the statute has the power to grant reliefs that the Civil Courts would normally grants in suit filed before them. 12. A workman is defined under Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947 and it includes any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry whether unskilled, skilled, technical or operational. The definition is already enough and there is no doubt about the fact that the plaintiff is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947. The averment in para No.1 of plaint also indicate that the plaintiff has admitted applicability of standing orders (S.O.) framed by the defendants. There is nothing on record to suggest otherwise, therefore, the plaintiff as a workman. 13. Here in this case, the only issue is invocation of jurisdiction of Civil Court. The Appellate Court on basis of evidence has drawn a conclusion that there was a violation of principles of natural justice and this conclusion is based on evidence both documentary and oral as available on record. In case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa (supra), already settled that a Civil Court has a jurisdiction to [2025:RJ-JP:23489] (7 of 7) [CSA-96/2000] entertain a dispute if there is a violation of principles of natural justice. Here in this case, the plaintiff has averred that the termination order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. A declaratory relief is sought only on ground of violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore, as per settled legal position, a Civil Court has jurisdiction, even if the plaintiff is a workman. 14. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the substantial question of law is answered in negative and decided against the appellants. 15. On basis of grounds and material on record, the trial Court has framed issues regarding limitation but the Appellate Court while deciding the fact that the civil suit is filed after dismissal of appeal and the suit is within three years from date of dismissal of appeal. A departmental appeal filed aggrieved from order of dismissal is continuous of process, therefore, there is no ground exist for appellants about filing of civil suit beyond the period of limitation. 16. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the instant civil second appeal is liable to be dismissed. 17. As a result, the instant civil second appeal preferred by the appellants aggrieved from judgment dated 29.10.1999 is hereby dismissed. 18. Miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of. 19. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/92