Devinder Gupta, A.C.J.
1. Order passed on 20.9.1994 by Ms. Poonam Chaudhary, Civil Judge, Delhi is under challenge in this civil revision filed tinder Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By the said order learned Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for rejection of the plaint holding that the decree claimed by the plaintiffs/respondents in the suit regarding declaration and of permanent injunction against the plaintiffs' harassment by the defendant/ petitioner and also for restraining the defendant/petitioner from compelling the regular and permanent employee to resign from its employment and to join other defendants cannot be granted by Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, thereforee, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.
2. Facts in brief are that respondent No. 1 a trade union instituted a suit against the defendant/petitioner impleading three other defendants therein claiming the following reliefs :
'(i) that a decree for declaration be passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants declaring the contracts entered into by the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 to provide workmen to defendant No. 1 as illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, against law and unforceable;
(ii) that a decree for mandatory injunction be passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant No. 1 to take back all the employees in its regular and permanent employment, which have been engaged by defendant No. 1 through defendant Nos. 2 to 4;
(iii) that a decree for permanent injunction be passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant No. 1 restraining the defendant No. 1 from engaging the services of any person through defendant Nos. 2 to 4 or any other contractor, and from entering into any such contract for supply of workmen against regular and permanent posts, and to compel regular and permanent employee to resign from its employment and to joint its subsidiary companies or of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and taking the work from the workmen engaged through defendant Nos. 2 to 4 against regular and permanent posts.'
3. After the defendant/petitioner was served an application was filed by it for rejection of plaint or in any case for return of plaint on the ground that the plaintiff had in the suit raised a dispute, which purely falls under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and is triable by Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal.
4. The plaintiff alleged that it was a Trade Union duly registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926. The defendant had been operating international passenger as well Cargo flights from the International Airports of India. All non-managerial staff of the defendant posted at International Airports are members of plaintiff Union. Since 1990 the defendant had adopted a policy of anti labour and unfair labour practices with a view to demolish the plaintiff and with a view to finish the existence of the plaintiff Union. The defendant had entered into contracts with M/s. Executive Placement Services, M/s. Reservation Data Maintenance India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Bodda Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. (defendant Nos. 2 to 4) for Supply of manpower, vacancies, which were falling, were being filled up by persons supplied by the said defendant Nos. 2 to 4. The plaintiff thereafter urged that defendant was covered under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. In furtherance of its anti-labour activities the defendant had started forcing regular and permanent employees to resign and accept the employment of defendant (Nos. 2 to 4). The plaintiff alleged that by these anti-labour and unfair labour practices the defendant was compelling the employees to resign. This act of the defendant/petitioner was termed as anti-labour amounting to unfair labour practices and being illegal and invalid reliefs claimed for were sought.
5. Unfair Labour Practice has been defined in Section 2(ra) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 25T in Chapter VC of the Act prohibits any employer, workman or trade union from committing any unfair trade practice. Act of committing any unfair trade practice under Section 25U of the Act is punishable. Matters specified in Schedule II are within the jurisdiction of Labour Court and as specified in Schedule V are the unfair labour practice. Indulging in acts of forcing or use of violence also amount to unfair labour practice, which the plaintiff has alleged that the defendant had been indulging and compelling or forcing or coercing the members of the plaintiff Union to resign and join defendant Nos. 2 to 4. Disputes as raised by the plaintiff on bare allegation made in the plaint are such for which there is adequate and efficacious, remedy available to the plaintiff under the provisions of the Act. The Tribunals created under the said Act are the proper Forum for the plaintiff to approach and have the disputed questions adjudicated upon, for which reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Tarlok Chand and Ors. v. National Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors., : (1994)IILLJ1130Del . Reference may also be made to decision of Supreme Court in Jitendra Nath bids was v. M/s. Empire of India and Ceylone Tea Co., 1990 (19) DRJ 253, wherein it was held that the disputes, which fall within the ambit of the definition of Industrial Dispute as defined in Section 2(r) of the Act would be triable exclusively by the Tribunals constituted under the Act and not by the Civil Court. The plaintiff in the plaint is seeking enforcement of rights or obligations created under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and even on the ratio of the decision of Supreme Court in The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Anr., etc. etc. v. Krishna Kant etc. etc., : (1995)IILLJ728SC , the only remedy would be to approach the Forums created under the Act.
6. In view of the above, the order passed by learned Civil Judge is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.
7. Consequently, the revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and it is held that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit filed by the plaintiff. The plaint is ordered to be returned to the plaintiff.