Supreme Court on the Principle of Coram Non Judice

 

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.