JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
2. This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.12.1987 passed by the 1st Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Civil Misc. Case No. 51 of 1985.
3. The revisionist has sought the relief from this Court to allow the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 24.12.1987 and to dismiss the execution application moved by the opposite party before the learned Civil Judge.
4. The impugned order of the court-below has been assailed on the grounds that the U. P. Public Service Tribunal No. II, Lucknow, lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition under Section 4 Of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 and as such, the judgment and order dated 30.4.1979 passed by it, was without jurisdiction, it has been contended that the said judgment being nullity in the eye of law, cannot be executed against the revisionist. It is further submitted that the objection to the jurisdiction can be taken at any stage. It has been vehemently argued that the principle of res judicata applies only where the Court had jurisdiction to pass such judgment or decree as the competence of the Court is pre-requisite for applicability of Section 11, C.P.C. and the executing court acted illegally and with material irregularity in dismissing the objection under Section 47, C. P.C. challenging the lack of jurisdiction in passing the order dated 30.4.1979.
5. The brief facts necessary for deciding the dispute are that the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Khatauli terminated the services of Radhey Lal, opposite party on 17.10.1967, who was working as peon In Nagar Palika, Khatauli. Radhey Lal challenged the said order dated 17.10.1967 in Regular Suit No. 390 of 1969 praying for declaration that the order of termination was void, illegal and without jurisdiction. The suit was dismissed by the Munsif, Muzaffarnagar. Aggrieved by the said order, Radhey Lal filed Civil Appeal No. 115 of 1970, which was decided by the Additional Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar remanding the matter to the Munsif, Muzaffarnagar for deciding afresh. During the pendency of the suit, U. P. Public Services Tribunal Ordinance, 1975, was enforced as a result of which the file was remitted to the Tribunal for deciding it in accordance with law. The claim petition filed by opposite party was registered as Claim Petition No. 645/T/II/77 before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. It was decided on 30.4.1979 by the Tribunal directing the revisionist to re-start the disciplinary proceedings against Radhey Lal and further the allowances for the period of suspension be also decided according to Rules 54A and 54B of the Financial Hand-book Volumes II to IV.
6. In the meantime, Radhey Lal instituted Execution Case No. 39 of 1979, Radhey Lal v. Nagar Palika, Khatauli, on the basis of the judgment of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal dated 30.4.1979 and claimed his back wages on the basis of the said judgment.
7. In compliance of the direction given by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, Nagar Palika Khatauli, re-started the disciplinary proceedings and issued a show cause notice to Radhey Lal on 25.6.1980, but no reply to the show cause notice was given by the opposite party and as such, the Officer Incharge, Nagar Palika, Khatauli, terminated the services of Radhey Lal vide order dated 17.9.1980. Aggrieved by the order of termination dated 17.9.1980, opposite party filed another Claim Petition No. 207/11/81 before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal II, Lucknow. The claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 23.11.1983 holding that it had no jurisdiction to decide this claim petition because the provisions of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are applicable in the case of an employee of Nagar Palika. In the judgment dated 23.11.1983, the U. P. Public Services Tribunal held that the employee of Nagar Palika is a workman and the Tribunal had no Jurisdiction to decide the claim of a workman. The relevant portion of the judgment passed on 23.11.1983, is quoted Below :
"In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage and Ors. v. A. Rajeppa and Ors., 1978 SCC (Labour and Services) para 215 the Tax Department of the Municipal Board is an Industry as defined in the U. P. Industrial Dispute Act and the employees working in the said department are consequently workmen as defined therein. Therefore, the above petitioners working in the Tax Department of the Municipal Board will be called as workmen as the said departments are to be termed as Industry as defined in U. P. Industrial Dispute Act and hence their disputes with their respective employers relating to their dismissal/termination or cancellation of promotion order shall be termed as Industrial Dispute as defined in the above Act and shall be decided in accordance with the procedure and before the Court provided in the said Act.
Moreover, Section 1 (4) of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal Act clearly provides that the said section and Sections 2 and 6 shall apply in relation to all public servants while the remaining provisions shall not apply to the classes of public servants mentioned in Sub-clauses (a) to (e) of the Act. Sub-clause (e) excludes the workmen as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The provisions clearly exclude the workmen as defined in these Acts from the purview of U. P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act including Section 4 except Sections 1, 2 and 6 which have been applied in relation to all public servants. The exclusion of workmen has been done by the above provisions because there is separate self contained law in the shape of above Industrial Disputes Act (both Central and State). As such since the petitioners of these cases have been held to be workmen as defined in the above Industrial Disputes Act, they are excluded from the application under Section 4 of the Act and the other provisions of Public Services (Tribunal) Act except Sections 1, 2 and 6 and on this ground too, they cannot maintain their present petitions under Section 4 of the Act.
The preliminary objection raised by the opposite parties regarding want of jurisdiction of this Tribunal to entertain the present petition is accepted.
ORDER The claim petitions are, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable under Section 4 of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976, as this Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their respective costs themselves."
8. It has been contended on behalf of Nagar Palika that under Section 4 of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976, Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the workman and hence the remedy lay under U. P. Indus trial/Labour Tribunal. And no execution proceedings can be taken. It is contended that in the judgment dated 23.11.1983 pertaining to dismissal of opposite party, it has been held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the same, hence the judgment dated 23.11.1983 will prevail.
9. In the meantime, Radhey Lal also filed Misc. Case No. 51 of 1985 before the Conciliation Officer, Muzaffarnagar, which was dismissed on 29.1.1986, holding that the case was time-barred and as such, he is not entitled to any relief or any allowance.
10. The revisionist has submitted his objections under Section 47 and Section 151, C.P.C. in Execution Case No. 39 of 1979 and has contended that the order of U. P. Public Services Tribunal dated 23.11.1983 is final and is binding on the opposite party and the earlier order passed by the Tribunal dated 30.4.1979 was void and no relief can be granted in Execution Case No. 39 of 1979. The opposite party does not deny the aforesaid factual position regarding judgment of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal dated 30.4.1979 passed in Regular Suit No. 390 of 1969. It was not denied that subsequently Radhey Lal was dismissed from service after holding enquiry, which was challenged by him in Claim Petition No. 207/11/81. It has also not been denied that Radhey Lal had moved the State machinery for conciliation proceedings before the Conciliation Officer, Muzaffarnagar being C.B. 51 of 1985, Radhey Lal v. Administrator, Nagar Palika, Khatauli, which was dismissed on 29.1.1986 as time-barred.
11. Admittedly, Radhey Lal was a workman. The Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case of Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad and Anr., 2002 (92) FLR 1159, has considered the question whether the relief sought by the plaintiff in the suit comes within the ambit of Section 4(k) and Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
12. After considering the principles laid down in the cases of Dhulabhai and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., (1968) 3 SCR 662 and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Krishna Kant and Ors., 1975 (71) FLR 211 (SC), the Apex Court has held :
"5. It may be borne in mind that the Industrial Disputes Act was enacted by the Parliament to provide speedy, inexpensive and effective forum for resolution of disputes arising between workmen and the employers, the underlying idea being to ensure that the workman does not get caught in the labyrinth of civil courts which the workmen can ill afford, as has been stated by this Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation case (supra). It cannot be disputed that the procedure followed by civil courts are too lengthy and consequently, is not an efficacious forum for resolving industrial disputes speedily. The power of industrial courts also is wide and such forums are empowered to grant adequate relief as they think just and appropriate. It is in the interest of the workmen that their disputes, including the dispute of illegal termination are adjudicated upon by an industrial forum.
6. In aforesaid premises and having regard to the relief sought for in the suits filed in the civil court, we have no manner of hesitation to come to the conclusion that in such cases, the jurisdiction of the civil court must be held to have been impliedly barred and the appropriate forum for resolution of such dispute is the forum constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity with the impugned judgment of the High Court requiring our interference. The appeals accordingly fail and are dismissed. We would however observe that it would be open for the appellants workmen to approach the appropriate industrial forum and such forum if approached, will dispose of the matter on its own merits. There will be no order as to costs.
Appeals dismissed."
13. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the civil court had no jurisdiction and the Suit No. 390 of 1969 praying for declaration that the order of termination dated 17.10.1967 was illegal, was not maintainable, v. P. Public Services Tribunal had no jurisdiction under Section 4 of the v. P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976, as Radhey Lal, opposite party is a workman and as such, the judgment and order dated 30.4.1979 was without jurisdiction. The U. P. Public Services Tribunal vide its order dated 23.11.1983, has rightly come to the conclusion that it has no jurisdiction under Section 4 of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976, to entertain Claim Petition No. 207/11/81 filed by Radhey Lal challenging the order of his dismissal from service dated 23.11.1983, after holding an enquiry and no relief can be granted by the Tribunal and as such, the execution application moved by the opposite party before the Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Misc. Case No. 51 of 1985, Execution Case No. 39 of 1979 is void.
14. No person can be left remediless. The Apex Court in catena of cases has condoned the delay upto the period of 21 years depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The Conciliation Officer, Muzaffarnagar, has committed an error in law in dismissing Misc. Case No. 51 of 1985 on 24.12.1987, filed by Radhey Lal for reference of the dispute by holding that the same was time-barred.
15. For the reasons stated above, the civil revision is allowed and the order dated 24.12.1987 passed by 1st Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Misc. Case No. 51 of 1985 is set aside. However, the Conciliation Officer, Muzaffarnagar, is directed to refer the dispute regarding dismissal of opposite party within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. Since the matter is very old, a regular suit having been filed in the year 1969, the labour court shall hold the hearing on day-to-day basis in accordance with Rule 12 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and shall adjudicate upon the reference and decide the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of reference.