The Hindu : National : Court ruling on labour disputes

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Aug 24, 2005

National

National

Court ruling on labour disputes

Legal Correspondent

Civil courts in the country do not have any jurisdiction "It is a well settled law laid down by the apex court that if the court has no jurisdiction, the jurisdiction cannot be conferred by any order of court"

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday held that civil courts in the country have no jurisdiction to entertain labour disputes from workmen and only an Industrial Tribunal or a Labour court could adjudicate such disputes.

A Bench, comprising Justice Ruma Pal and Justice A.R. Lakshmanan, while giving this ruling said suits filed by employees relating to their termination would not be maintainable before civil courts. Writing the judgment, Justice Lakshmanan said the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act had provided a detailed procedure to deal with disputes raised by the workmen and the machinery for getting relief. Therefore, in case of termination of service of a worker, the only remedy was by way of reference under the provisions of the ID Act. "It is a well settled law laid down by the apex court that if the Court has no jurisdiction, the jurisdiction cannot be conferred by any order of court. The scheme of the ID Act clearly excludes the jurisdiction of the civil court by implication in respect of remedies which are available under this Act and for which a complete procedure and machinery has been provided in this Act," he said.

The Bench further said the ID Act was enacted to provide a speedy, inexpensive and effective forum for the resolution of disputes arising between workmen and employers. The underlying idea was to ensure that workmen were not caught in the labyrinth of civil courts that they could ill-afford. The Bench gave this ruling on an appeal by the Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation challenging a High Court judgment upholding a trial court's finding that the dismissal of a probationer was illegal and bad in law.

Setting aside the High Court judgment, the Bench said that since the probationer had placed reliance on the standing order, the only remedy available to him was by way of reference to the ID Act. The Judges said that when a specific remedy was provided in the statute, "the person who insists upon such remedy can avail of the process as provided in that statute and in no other manner."

Holding that dismissal from service was not open to challenge, the Judges said: "the order, in our opinion, is innocuous without any stigma nor evil consequences visiting him."

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National