Author- Saurabh Tripathy, City Academy Law College, Lucknow Uttar Pradesh

KEYWORDS :

Section 10 CPC, Section 151, jurisdiction, labour court pharmacist

CASE DETAILS

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

• The respondent of the case at the Supreme Court was a senior pharmacist at the organization of National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Science (appellant in the case)
• The NIMHS charged the respondent in 1988 with the Misappropriation of drugs, and as the standard procedure in any of these types of matters, an inquiry committee was set up.
• The disciplinary committee which was set up found the respondent guilty and thus issued the show-cause notice about why he should not be removed from service and also he should indemnify the losses that occurred due to his insufficiency at work.
• The respondent was removed from the services and after the insufficiency to pay the indemnify amount a civil suit was filed against the respondent in civil court.
• C. Parameshwara challenged his removal order in the Labour Court, the court set aside the removal order and also ordered his reinstatement in service but without his back wages.
• The organization (NIMHANS) or appellant appealed to the Hon’ble High Court . T High Court upheld the Labour Court’s orders of reinstatement and also ordered the quick disposal of the petition within 90 days.
• Parameshwara filed a request for a stay order against him in a civil suit under Sec 10[1] CPC filed at the Civil Court for the recovery of loss.
• Hon’ble High Court on the request of the respondent granted the stay order.
• Thus the appellant filed an SLP to the Supreme Cou.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Procedural Background of the Case

• In the year of 1988, the respondent was charged with mismanagement of drugs. After a due process of inquiry, the disciplinary authorities removed the respondent from service and also ordered him to indemnify the loss that occurred due to him. The respondent appealed to the labour court in the same year 1993.
• In the year of 1995, the appellant filed a suit in the civil judge court for the indemnifying of the losses occurred
• .The labour court set aside the decision of the removal and directed the reinstatement in the year of00.
• Following this appellant challenged the laLabourourts decision in the Hon’ble High Court, obtaining a stay on the Labour Court’s decision in the High Court obtaining a stay order on the order.
• The respondent filed an application seeking a stay on the civil suit in the high court The High Court granted the stay order on the civil suit.
• The appellant challenged the High Court’s decision in the Supreme Court . The Supreme Court upheld the High Court decision for expeditious disposal of the writ petitio.

ii) Factual Background of the Case

Employment-

Mr. C. Parameshwara was a senior pharmacist at the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Science (NIMHANS) from 1985. He was charged mishandling with the drugs to the extent of 179668.46

Inquiry Commission-

As a procedure an inquiry was conducted and the respondent was found guilty of misappropriation.

Disciplinary Action-

In the year of 1993 t,  the appellant removed the respondent from service and ordered him to reimburse the loss that occurred due to the respondent. 

Appeal-

In the year of01, the labour court set aside the removal order and directed reinstatement of the respondent without the back wage.s

Writ Petition in High Court:-

NIMHANS challenged the labour court’s decision ithe n the High Court, which issued an interim order staying the reinstatement.

Stay of Civil Suit and SLP at Supreme Court-

The High Court stayed the civil suit filed against the respondent until the decision of writ petition.

Thus NIMHANS filed an application in SuthPrimeme Court against the High Court decision, challenging the stay on the civil suit by the High Court under Section 151[2] of CPC

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED 

1. Maintainability of an application for stay of the civil suit under section 10 of CPC: The major question involved was whether the matter in a civil suit and labour court is the awesome not
2. The Invocation of Section 151 CPC by the High Court:-
3. The question of application of Section 151 to bypass Section 10 of the code was justified or not.

PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that –
2. The respondent has misused the drugs which were found after the appellsufferedredd a loss The respondent was found guilty after an inquiry was made as a result of which he was removed from services and thus also asked to indemnify the amount of loss to the NIMHANS.
3. The decision of the Labour Court to reinstate the respondent in services without the back wages was incorrect as the institute suffered the loss due to his incapacity at work.
4. High CCourt’sstay of the civil suit while the petition against the Labour Court’s decision was a pen, ding was an abuse of its discretion power.
5. Respondent’s application for a stay process in the civil suit under section 10 of CPC was not maintainable as the issues involved were distinct.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. 1. The counsels for Respondent submitted that he was wrongly dismissed from the services. 
   2. The reinstatement decision given by the labour court was justified.
   3. The stay granted by the High Court on the civil suit was the need of the hour to prevent the conflicting decisions by the two courts of the same jurisdictional matter.
   4. The application given by the respondent is was maintainable under Section 10 of CPC.

JUDGEMENT

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Section 10 CPC, invokes the concept of RES JUDICATA[3] i.e., it prevents Courts with the same jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits concerning the same issue and does not apply to proceedings before the Labour Court.
2. The High Court erred in staying the civil suit, as the writ petition and the civil suit involved distinct legal issues.
3. The High Court was not authorized to circumvent Section 10 by applying Section 151 of CPC.

OBITER DICTA

1. The inherent jurisdiction of the Court under section 151 CPC can’t be used to nullify the provisions of the code. 
2. The principle of RES JUDICATA applies only when the subject matter of both suits is identical.
3. The labour court is not an equivalent court to the Civil Court.

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and allowed the civil suit to proceed The case underscores the importance of understanding the jurisdictional boundaries of different courts and the applicability of procedural provisions like Section 10 CPC. It clarifies that the existence of a writ petition does not automatically warrant a stay of civil proceedings especially when the courts involved do not share concurrent jurisdiction.

[1] https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_3_20_00051_190805_1523340333624&orderno=10

[2]https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_3_20_00051_190805_1523340333624&sectionId=33494&sectionno=151&orderno=162

[3] https://districts.ecourts.gov.in/sites/default/files/3rdworkshoppdmcourt.pdf