Civil Courts Retain Exclusive Jurisdiction For Non-Industrial Disputes & Provide Alternative Remedies For Common Law Claims: J&K High Court

However, a bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul clarified that if the dispute arises out of a right or liability under general or common law rather than the ID Act, the jurisdiction of the civil court becomes an alternative remedy, leaving the suitor the choice to pursue relief through either mechanism.

These observations arose from the dismissal of respondent Abdul Majid Bhat, a Cashier-cum-Clerk at J&K Bank Limited in 1988. Claiming the dismissal and the subsequent inquiry were arbitrary, he approached the Civil Court seeking declaratory and other reliefs, including reinstatement and payment of salaries. The Trial Court dismissed the suit citing lack of jurisdiction under Section 9 read with Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act.

On appeal, the Additional District Judge overturned this decision, holding that civil courts had jurisdiction in the matter, prompting the bank to approach the High Court.

The appellants (J&K Bank Limited) argued that the dispute fell within the scope of the ID Act, which exclusively governs industrial disputes. They contended that the respondent, as a bank employee, qualified as a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Act and that his dismissal based on misconduct could only be adjudicated under the ID Act. They further asserted that the reliefs sought, particularly reinstatement, were beyond the jurisdiction of civil courts and fell exclusively within the purview of labor courts.

The respondent (Abdul Majid Bhat) countered that his dismissal violated principles of natural justice and common law rights, thus falling within the jurisdiction of civil courts. He alleged that the inquiry conducted by the Bank was unfair and malicious, warranting judicial intervention by the civil court.

Court's Observations:

Justice Koul extensively examined the issue of jurisdiction, focusing on whether the dispute qualified as an industrial dispute under the ID Act or involved common law rights enforceable through civil courts.

The court referred to the definition of "workman" under Section 2(s) of the ID Act, noting that it excludes individuals employed in managerial or administrative capacities, those earning wages above a prescribed limit, and others specified in the provision. The court highlighted that a person claiming to be a workman must substantiate their claim by proving the nature of their employment.

Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Lenin Kumar Ray v. Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd (2024), the court reiterated that the determination of whether an employee is a workman depends on their primary duties rather than their job designation. It emphasized that the onus to prove such status rests on the claimant.

The court further observed that in the present case, no conclusive determination had been made regarding whether the respondent fell within the definition of a “workman” under the ID Act, thereby necessitating adjudication by the civil court.

The court also referred to the judgment in RSRTC v. Deen Dayal Sharma (2010), which clarified that the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred only when the dispute pertains to a right or obligation exclusively created under the ID Act. However, when a dispute involves common law rights or constitutional principles, civil courts retain their jurisdiction, the court maintained.

Additionally, the court relied on the landmark decision in Premier Automobiles Ltd v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke (1975), which laid down principles for determining civil court jurisdiction in industrial disputes. It affirmed that if a dispute is not an industrial dispute under the ID Act or does not pertain to enforcement of rights under the Act, the remedy lies exclusively in civil courts. However, where a dispute arises out of general law, the civil court's jurisdiction is alternative, allowing the suitor to elect their remedy the court said while emphasising that dual remedies cannot be pursued simultaneously.

Applying these principles, the High Court upheld the appellate court's decision, finding that the Trial Court had erred in ousting its jurisdiction without examining whether the respondent was a workman or whether the dispute arose under the ID Act.

In view of this position of law the court dismissed the appeal and directed the matter to proceed before the Trial Court, which must determine all issues on their merits.

Case Title: J&K Bank Vs Abdul Majeed Bhat

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 345

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment