[2025:RJ-JP:30400] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 598/2011 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation R.s.r.t.c., Jaipur Through Its Chief Managing Director C.m.d. 2. The Divisional Manager, R.s.r.t.c., Ajmer ----Appellants/Defendants Versus Nemi Chand Sharma S/o Shri Badri Lal Sharma, Rajoshi At Present 609 2, Near Kali Mandir, Fai Sagar Road, Ajmer Raj. ----Respondent/Plaintiff For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anubodh Subodh Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinayak Kumar Joshi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 07/08/2025 This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2011 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Ajmer (for short ‘the first Appellate Court’) in appeal No. 21/2008 whereby the appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) and set aside the judgment dated 19.11.2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) No.3, Ajmer (for short ‘the trial Court’) and declared the plaintiff as a regular conductor from 20.09.1976 and while restoring his seniority held him entitled to get salary, allowances and consequential benefits. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants mentioning therein that the plaintiff was appointed as a traffic trainee on 11.03.1976. He joined the said [2025:RJ-JP:30400] (2 of 4) [CSA-598/2011] post on 20.03.1976. He was posted as a regular conductor from 01.05.1977. He prayed that he should be given the benefit of seniority, pay and allowances in compliance to the order dated 14.06.1978 passed by the RSRTC as given to other employees. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that the plaintiff was appointed for two years as traffic trainee. During training period, only allowances were payable to him. He is not entitled to get regular promotion and other benefits as per the order dated 14.06.1978. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- ^^1- vk;k oknh fn- 20-09-76 ls fu;fer ifjpkyd ds :i esa ofj"Brk] osru o osru HkRrk ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 2- vk;k okn oknh fe;kn ckgj gS\ 3- vk;k izfrokn i= dh pj.k la- 11 esa of.kZr vuqlkj U;k;’kqYd vnk fd;s fcuk oknh dk okn fujLr gksus ;ksX; gS\ 4- vk;k izfrokn i= dh pj.k la[;k 10 esa of.kZr dFkuksa dk okn ij D;k izHkko gksxk\ 4,- vk;k izfrokn i= dh pj.k la[;k 12 esa of.kZrkuqlkj bl U;k;ky; dks bl okn dh lquokbZ dk {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gS\ 5- vuqrks"k\** To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1- Nemichand and got exhibited documents. The defendants also got examined DW-1- Ravi Sharma. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment dated 19.11.2005, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff with a direction to the plaintiff to raise his objections before the [2025:RJ-JP:30400] (3 of 4) [CSA-598/2011] concerned authority within two months and defendants were directed to act in accordance with law. Plaintiff challenged the judgment dated 19.11.2005 passed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.2011 allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and declared the plaintiff as a regular conductor from 20.09.1976 and also held him entitled to get the salary, allowances and consequential benefits. Defendants challenged the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2011 before this court by way of second appeal. This Court vide order dated 19.08.2011 admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:- (1) Whether the jurisdiction of civil court was barred in entertaining an industrial dispute in this matter regarding citation WLC 2003 (2) SC (Civil) 333? (2) Whether the findings of first appellate court are based on surmises and conjectures? Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the first appellate Court had committed an error in considering the jurisdiction of the civil court. Learned counsel submits that the civil court has no jurisdiction because the case pertains to the industrial dispute. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that the first appellate Court had not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in the right perspective. Case of the plaintiff is not similar to other employees and order dated 14.06.1978 is not retrospectively applicable. So, the finding arrived at by the first appellate Court be set aside. [2025:RJ-JP:30400] (4 of 4) [CSA-598/2011] Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendants and submits that the principle of natural justice was violated because similarly situated persons were regularized in service after completion of six months but the plaintiff was wrongly denied the same. So, the first appellate rightly came to the conclusion that this is not an industrial dispute, Civil court has jurisdiction to try the matter where principle of natural justice is violated. So, the findings arrived at by the first appellate court do not suffer from any illegality and infirmity. So, the appeal filed by the defendants deserves to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. It is an admitted position that plaintiff was wrongly denied regularization although similarly situated persons were given the benefit of regularization. So, in my considered opinion, only civil court had jurisdiction where principle of natural justice is violated. The first appellate Court has rightly appreciated the evidence led by the parties. So, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/16