Short Note : 1. The case of the plaintiff is that on 23.12.1964, he was the driver in the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation and took bus No. MPG-8848 from Shivpuri to Magroni. The bus stopped at Bus Stand Magroni and was kept there during the night. The plaintiff returned with the bus next day to Shivpuri. When the bus was standing at Magroni, some persons removed the new self starter from the bus and fixed an old one in its place as a result of which the bus could not be started. The report of the said incident was made in the Shivpuri depot and a departmental enquiry was conducted by the officials of the Corporation with respect to the theft of the self starter and on the basis of that enquiry, the plaintiff's services were terminated. This order of termination, the plaintiff challenged in the Court, saying that the departmental enquiry was conducted when he was not present and that he was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses produced against him. Not only this thing, but he was not allowed to produce his evidence also. Therefore, the order of termination is bad in law. He filed a suit for declaration that the termination order is bad in law and that he should be deemed in service and he is entitled for pay and allowances. 2. The trial Court decreed the suit and the appellate Court confirmed the decree. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted before me that the finding of both the Courts that the Civil Court has jurisdiction under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not correct. The only Court competent to decide the matter is the Labour Court. I think, the submission made by the learned counsel is correct. The M.P. Industrial Relations Act defines under section 2(17), the meaning of industrial dispute. 4. Section 2(18) defines the industrial matter, while section 31 speaks at notice of change. 5. From all these sections taken together, it is clear that termination of service of an employee by an employer is covered under Schedule II (1) of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act and this is definitely an industrial matter and it is covered by definition of industrial dispute. 5. From all these sections taken together, it is clear that termination of service of an employee by an employer is covered under Schedule II (1) of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act and this is definitely an industrial matter and it is covered by definition of industrial dispute. If it is covered by these sections, then the procedure is that the employee in the prescribed manner should approach, the employer with a request for the change and if no agreement is arrived at in respect of the change within the prescribed period, then he can apply to the Labour Court regarding the matter. The power of the Labour Court to decide the matter regarding dismissal is given in section 31. Under sections 65, 66 and 71, appeal, revision and review is provided respectively. So, it is a complete Code in itself. This shows that by implication, the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under this Act (M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960) and only the Labour Court is competent to entertain the application. 6. The learned counsel has referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Premier Automobiles vs. K.S. Wadke, AIR 1975 SC 2238 , which lays down regarding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. This case fully applies to the case before me. 7. As I have already said that there can be an implied bar, which view is also supported by this Court's judgment in Rameshwar vs. Dwarkaprasad (supra). Therefore, I hold that under M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960, such a suit in a Civil Court against the dismissal under Standing Orders is barred and the trial Court as well as the appellate Court were in error in holding that Civil Court has Jurisdiction. 1970 JLJ 184 and AIR 1967 SC 781 distinguished. AIR 1975 SC 2238 , relied on. Appeal allowed.