1. The present second appeal u/s.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellants herein – original defendants to quash and set aside the impugned judgement and decree dated 24/12/1987 passed by learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Rajkot in Regular Civil Suit No.559 of 1987 as well as impugned judgement and order dated 13/02/1989 passed by learned Lower Appellate Court – learned Joint District Judge, Rajkot in Regular Civil Appeal No.4 of 1988, by which, learned Appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellants herein – original defendants confirming the judgement and decree passed by learned Trial Court decreeing the suit.
2. Respondent herein – original plaintiff was serving as Conductor in the State Transport and departmental inquiry was initiated against him for theft of S.T.Bus tickets to the tune of 1462.92 ps. from the tray tickets of various conductors. He was charge-sheeted for the same and after holding that the charge/misconduct proved, the appellants herein dismissed the original plaintiff from service. It appears that in the meantime he was also prosecuted before learned Criminal Court and he came to be acquitted. It appears that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of dismissal dated 04/05/1987, original plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 559 of 1987 before learned Trial Court and learned Trial Court decreed the suit by judgement and decree dated 24/12/1987 by quashing and setting aside the order of dismissal. However reserving liberty in favour of the appellants herein to reconsider the order of punishment and to pass fresh order of punishment.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement and decree passed by learned Trial Court, the appellants herein – original defendants preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.4 of 1989 before learned Lower Appellate Court and learned Lower Appellate Court by impugned judgement and order dated 13/02/1989 dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgement and decree passed by learned Trial Court.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and orders passed by both the Courts below, the appellants herein – original defendants have preferred the present second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. At the outset, it is required to be noted that while admitting the present second appeal, learned Single Judge framed the following substantial questions of law :
“(a) Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to set aside the order of dismissal in view of the special forum provided under the Industrial Disputes Act?
(b) Whether any prejudice was caused to the respondent by the alleged non-supply of warrant or such other document contents of which were known to the plaintiff?”
6. Now so far as first substantial question of law framed by learned Single Judge with respect to jurisdiction of the Civil Court is concerned, the same is now res-integra in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.S.R.T.C. & Ors. V/s. Deen Dayal Sharma reported in 2010(2) GLR 540.
7. Now so far as second substantial question of law is concerned, after judgement and decree passed by learned Trial Court, the appellants herein reinstated the original plaintiff in service and thereafter original plaintiff has retired on 13/09/2007 on attaining the age of superannuation and he has been paid all the retiremental benefits i.e. provident fund, gratuity, etc. Under the circumstances, the present second appeal has become academic so far as substantial question no.2 is concerned. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that despite liberty reserved by lower Appellate Court to modify the punishment, nothing is on record that order of punishment was revised/modified. The original plaintiff is reinstated in service and thereafter he has been retired in the year 2007 and he has been paid all the retiremental benefits, the present second appeal is not required to be considered any further as the same has become academic.
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present second appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
[M.R.SHAH,J] *dipti