State and anr. Vs. Khan Farouk

.....law--neither benefit under the industrial disputes act claimed nor issue so joined--field, jurisdiction of civil court is not barred.;the plaintiff has not claimed the benefit of any provision of the industrial disputes act, and has based his claim as if that act had not come into force. in fact the parties have not joined issue on the question whether the plaintiff is entitled to any benefit peculiar to a workman, under any special law. he has thus claimed a right which was all along recognized under the general law, and did not come into existence, and was not created by, the industrial dispute act. in such circumstances, i am unable to find anything in sections 10 or 12 of the industrial dispute act to raise a bar against the maintainability of the present suit in a civil court. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....an incorrect finding on a question of jurisdiction because the jurisdiction of the civil court was ousted by sections 10 and 12 of the industrial disputes act.2. i have gone through the plaint and it shows that the plaintiff has not claimed the benefit of any provision of the industrial disputes act and has based his claim as if that act had not come into force. in fact the parties have not joined issue on the question whether the plaintiff is entitled to any benefit peculiar to a workman, under any special law. he has thus claimed a right which was all along recognized under the general law, and did not come into existence, and was not created by, the industrial disputes act. in such circumstances. i am unable to find anything in sections 10 or 12 of the industrial disputes act to raise a bar against the maintainability of the present suit in a civil court. reference in this connection may be made to austin distributors pvt. ltd. v. nil kumar das 1970 lab. i c 323. there is therefore no occasion or justification to revise the finding of the court below on issue no. 12.3. it may be mentioned that learned deputy government advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has placed reliance on krishnan and anr. v. east india distilleries and sugar factories ltd nellikuppam and anr. 1964 (1) llj 217, nanoo asan madhvan v. state of kerala and ors. 1970 (1) llj 272 and state of kerala v. n. ramaswami iyer and sons : [1966]61itr187(sc) . in the first two of these cases, the claim was in respect of a right under the industrial disputes act. the remaining case was one under the sales tax act & was of a different nature. none of the three cases can therefore be said to be relevant for a finding on issue no. 12, which is subject-matter of controversy in the present petition.4. as there is no merit in the revision petition, it is dismissed with costs.