1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR
ORDER
S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.251/1996
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others
Versus
Shayer Singh
DATE OF ORDER

---

October 31,2011

PRESENT
HONBLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA

Mr. Kailash Choudhary, for the defendant-appellants

Mr.Mukesh Kumar Verma, for the plaintiff-respondent
BY THE COURT
By

this

second

appeal,

the

defendant-appellants

have

challenged the judgment and decree dated 16.01.1996 passed by

the Additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur City in Civil Regular
Appeal No.139/1991 whereby the Appeal No.139/1991 RSRTC and
others V. Shayer Singh and Appeal No.116/1991 Shayer Singh V.
RSRTC and others were dismissed, which were filed challenging the
judgment and decree dated 19.4.1991 passed by the Addl. Munsif
No.2, Jaipur City Jaipur

in Case No.1065/1988. The trial court

declared the order of dismissal of the plaintiff dated 30.8.1983 and

the appellate order dated 5.7.1984 illegal, perverse and quashed
the same being violative of the principles of natural justice and
further declared the plaintiff entitled to remain in service and to be
further entitled to get all service benefits from 16.7.1988 i.e. the
date of filing the suit.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that on 4.10.1990,
the plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration, in the court of Addl.
Munsif No.2, Jaipur City for declaring the dismissal order dated

2
30.8.1983 and the appellate order dated 5.7.1984 as illegal. It was
averred in the plaint that a charge sheet was issued on 28.5.1983
in which it was alleged that thirteen passengers were found to be
without ticket in respect of which an enquiry was conducted but
during the course of enquiry, statements of the witnesses were
recorded behind the back of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was also
not given opportunity to defend himself. Therefore the plaintiff filed
the civil suit challenging the aforesaid orders being violative of the
principles of natural justice.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues
were framed:

1. 680, 30.8.83
2.8.85 , ?
2. ?
3. ?
4. ?
5. ?
In support of his case, the plaintiff Shayer Singh examined
himself as PW-1 and also produced documentary evidence. Despite
giving several opportunities, the defendants did not produce any
evidence and therefore, their evidence was closed.
The trial court, after considering the evidence on record,
decided Issue No.1 and 4 in favour of the plaintiff

and decided

Issue No.2 against the plaintiff. Issue No.3 regarding jurisdiction of

the civil court to hear the matter was decided by a detailed order in
favour of the plaintiff on 3.6.1989 and while granting relief, the trial
court declared

the

order of dismissal of the plaintiff dated

30.8.1983 and the appellate order dated 5.7.1984 as illegal,

perverse and quashed the same being violative of the principles of
natural justice and further, reinstated the plaintiff with the further

3
direction that the plaintiff will be entitled to all service benefits from
16.7.1988 i.e. the date of filing of the civil suit.
Against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 19.4.1991,
both the parties, filed appeals and the same were dismissed vide
judgment and decree dated 16.1.1996.
It would be relevant to mention here that no stay petition
was filed in this appeal and during the pendency of the appeal, the
plaintiff respondent was reinstated in service and thereafter, retired
from the service also.
Counsel for the defendants submits that since there was
violation of the Standing Orders, the civil court had no jurisdiction
to entertain the civil suit whereas counsel for the plaintiff submits
that both the courts below, while deciding Issues No.1 and 3 have
held that there is violation of the principles of natural justice,
therefore, the civil court has jurisdiction and order of removal dated
5.7.1984 and the appellate order dated 16.7.1988 being illegal and
perverse,

the same are liable to be quashed. In support of his

submission, counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on the

judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation and another V. Bal Mukund Bairwa (2) reported in
(2009) 4 SCC 299 in paras 36, 37 and 42 of which, it has been held
that if an employee intends to enforce his constitutional rights or a
right under a statutory regulation, the civil court will have the
necessary jurisdiction to try a suit. To substantiate his submission
relating to the violation of the principles of natural justice and right
of equality as contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India,
counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on paras 46 to 48 of Bal
Mukund Bairwa (2) (supra).

4
I have gone through record of the second appeal as well as
courts below and further considered the aforesaid rival submissions
of counsel for the parties.
Before proceeding further, it is necessary to quote the
relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in
Bal Mukund Bairwa (2). The same are as under:
If

an

employee

intends

to

enforce

his

constitutional rights or a right under a statutory

regulation, the civil court will have the necessary
jurisdiction to try a suit. If, however, he claims his right
and

corresponding

obligations

only

in

terms

of

provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act or the sister

laws, the civil court will not have jurisdiction. It is not
correct to contend that only because an employee
concerned is also a workman within the meaning of the
1947 Act or conditions of his service are otherwise
governed by a Standing order certified under the 1946
Act, ipso facto the civil court will have no jurisdiction.
The question as to whether the civil court's jurisdiction
is barred or not, must be determined having regard to
the facts of each case. When there is doubt as to
whether civil court has jurisdiction to try a suit or not,
the court shall raise a presumption that it has such
jurisdiction.
46. Mr.Ray, however, would submit that the application
of principles of natural justice may be different keeping
in view (i) the common law principles; (ii) the statutory
provisions; and (iii) the constitutional provisions. The
principles of natural justice ensure fairness. It means
that a result or process should be just. It is a harmless,
though it may be a high-sounding expression; insofar
as it attempts to reflect the old jus naturale, it is a
confused and unwarranted transfer into the ethical
sphere of a term employed for other distinctions; and
insofar as it is resorted to for other purposes, it is
vacuous, so said Lord Shaw of Dunfermline in Local
Govt. Board V. Arlidge 1915 AC 120 (HL), AC at p.138.

5
47.

The purpose of the principles of natural justice is

prevention of miscarriage of justice and hence the

observance thereof is the pragmatic requirement of fair
play in action. (See Sawai Singh V. State of Rajasthan
(1986) 3 SCC 454 and Narinder Mohan Arya V. United
India Insurance Co.Ltd. (2006) 4 SCC 713.
48.

In a case where no enquiry has been conducted,

there would be a violation of the statutory regulation as

also the right of equality as contained in Article 14 of
the Constitution of India. In such situation, a civil suit
will be maintainable for the purpose of declaration that
the

termination

of

service

was

consequences flowing therefrom.

illegal

and

the

However, we may

hasten to add that if a suit is filed alleging violation of a

right by a workman and a corresponding obligation on
the part of the employer under the Industrial Disputes
Act or the Certified Standing Orders, a civi suit may not
lie. However, if no procedure has been followed as laid
down by the statutory regulation or is otherwise
imperative

even

under

the

common

law

or

the

principles of natural justice, which right having arisen

under the existing law, sub para (2) of para 23 of the
law laid down in Premier Automobiles Ltd. V.Kamlekar
Shantaram Wadke of Bombay (1976) 1 SCC 496.

I find that there is no substantial question of law involved in

the second appeal and both the courts below have rightly held that
the enquiry was violative of the principles of natural justice. The
submission of counsel for the defendant-appellants of violation of
the Standing Order has no force for the reason that the right to
defend was not allowed to be taken by the plaintiff-respondent.
The second appeal is dismissed.

(Prem Shanker Asopa) J.

pa