INTRODUCTION
Today, I will talk about the case of Milkhi
Ram v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, Civil Appeal No. 1346
of 2010, that was decided on 08.10.2021, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
discussed the principle of coram non judice with respect to the
Industrial Disputes Act.
PLAIN MEANING
Before adverting any further, let us understand
the plain meaning of coram non judice. Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth
Edition, defines coram non judice as a situation where a matter is “before
a judge or court that is not the proper one or that cannot take legal
cognizance of the matter.”
JUDICIAL MEANING
Further, in the case of Bhoruka Textiles
Ltd. v. Kashmiri Rice Industries, (2009) 7 SCC 521, the Court explained
the principle of coram non judice. According to the Court if a civil
court’s jurisdiction is ousted by a statutory provision, then any decision
passed by it is a nullity and “it is a fundamental principle that a
decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its
invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or
relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings.
A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it
is in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very
authority of the court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured
even by consent of parties.”
CONTEXT
The facts of the case are not necessary for the
purposes of this show and hence, the same are not being discussed here. Briefly
speaking, in the instant case, a Civil Court entertained a Civil Suit based on
the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that had challenged
retrenchment of a daily wages employee, and later on, it was contended before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the judgment and decree passed by the Civil
Court in favour of the plaintiff are a nullity. In the instant case, the Civil
Court inter alia directed for payment of back-wages to the employee. In
order to understand the concept of coram non judice with respect to the
Industrial Disputes Act, let us go through the pertinent observations by the
Supreme Court.
OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT
Firstly, the Court cited the case of Rajasthan
SRTC v. Zakir Hussain, (2005) 7 SCC 447, wherein following important
principles were laid down: -
a. “Where the dispute arises from general
law of contract i.e. where reliefs are claimed on the basis of the general law
of contract,” a Civil Suit is maintainable in such situations “even
though such a dispute may also constitute an ‘industrial dispute’,”
within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act.
b. “Where, however, the dispute involves
recognition, observance or enforcement of any of the rights or obligations
created by the Industrial Disputes Act, the only remedy is to approach the
forums created by the said Act.”
c. Similarly, where the dispute involves
recognition, observance or enforcement of any of the rights or obligations
created under any law that relates to Industrial Disputes Act, then “the
only remedy shall be to approach the forums created by the Industrial Disputes
Act provided they constitute industrial disputes within the meaning of”
the Industrial Disputes Act.
Secondly, the Court observed that “the civil
courts may have limited jurisdiction in service matters, but jurisdiction may
not be available to Court to adjudicate on orders passed by disciplinary
authority. The authorities specified under the ID Act including the appropriate
government and the industrial courts perform various functions and the ID Act
provides for a wider definition of “termination of service” and the condition
precedent of termination of service. The consequence of infringing those, are
also provided in the ID Act. When a litigant opts for common law remedy, he may
choose either the civil court or the industrial forum.”
Thirdly, the Court opined that “when civil
court has no jurisdiction, the decree passed in those proceedings can have no
force of law” and “the plea of decree being a nullity can also be
raised at the stage of execution.”
Fourthly, the Court noted that when a claim in a
Civil Suit is founded on the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, “the
employer therefore is entitled to raise a jurisdictional objection to the
proceedings” and “the decree in favour of the plaintiff is hit by
the principle of coram non judice and therefore, the same is a nullity.”
And lastly, according to the Court, considering
the principles of equity and the hardship to the retrenched/terminated
employee, “the arrear sum paid to him pursuant to the court’s decree,
should not be recovered.”
ENDING REMARKS
Those were the observations by the Court. Therefore, I hope that the meaning and the nature of coram non judice specifically with reference to Industrial Disputes Act is clear by now.
good morning sir how can one challenge an order passed by court of coram non judice
ReplyDeleteBy filing writ petition under Article 226/227
ReplyDelete