Judgment :- 1. The second appeal raises an important question about the jurisdiction of the civil court to try a matter coming within the term 'agricultural dispute', as defined in the Kerala Agricultural Workers Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The courts below have taken the view that such a suit is not maintainable. That view is in challenge in the second appeal. 2. The background facts may be briefly referred to. They relate to activities in what was a peaceful agricultural segment sometime back. For reasons which need not be detailed, considerable transformation in the social set up took place during the last few decades. Many who had only a precarious tenure and uncertain enjoyment over the land became land owners. That was the result of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. New situations created new problems too. The tenants became the owners of the land. The large segments of agricultural workers continued to remain workers. The Land Reforms Act gave only limited rights such as kudikidappu rights to them. The impact of the progressive ideas and trade union activities, had their effect in their attitudes and habits too. Vociferous and organised agricultural workers organisations pleaded for, and got, a legislative bounty under the Act. 3. Though the Act was passed in 1974, its effective implementation, for various reasons, got delayed. At about 1980, as regards the parties involved in this litigation, tensions mounted and continuous fights followed. In November-December of 1980, such tensions assumed an undesirable form and proportion. This is, in a way, reflected by the decree in the other suit, O.S. 271/80 where the owner of the lands sought to realise damages sustained by the destruction of harvested crops due to the objectionable activities of the agricultural workers. That decree has become final. The question whether the destruction of the crops resulting from hard work of the agricultural labour and the organisational activities of the owner, would not be an act of extreme cruelty is a matter which should receive the attention of all concerned. Political philosophy and revolutionary thoughts, should not ordinarily encourage such a wanton distruction of the products of hard toil. 4. Coming to the appeal with which the court is now concerned, the short question is whether the provisions in the Act, indicate a clear indication of ouster of jurisdiction of the civil court. Precedents are not wanting on this question. Political philosophy and revolutionary thoughts, should not ordinarily encourage such a wanton distruction of the products of hard toil. 4. Coming to the appeal with which the court is now concerned, the short question is whether the provisions in the Act, indicate a clear indication of ouster of jurisdiction of the civil court. Precedents are not wanting on this question. 5. The broad pattern which has been adopted by the State in enacting the Act is very much similar to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 6. The agricultural workers were socially and economically the worst victims of oppression. They had their huts put up without designs and plans - not a circle not a square, nor having any regular angle, as a poet described it. Their 'forts and castles' were built of a few twigs and a few cadjan leaves. The 'blue belle' as painted in immortal words by a great poet (Ulloor) and in immortal colours by a great artist (Ravi Varma) carried on her head a hefty load of hay and golden grain, not for the urgent need of her starving family, but for filling the huge granary of her Lord. The fruits of labour which watered the children's mouths were to be carried for the Lord when they were ripe. The fate was little better than that of chattels. Fresh air of culture and the divine light of education were barred to them. They did not live; they merely existed. (A Deputy Collector, Potheri Kunhi Kannan, of Malabar, depicted their life in a fiction entitled "Saraswathi Vijayam", noted more for its factual details than for the literary flavour.) It is desirable to have such a brief recapitulation of the social background of the Act. 7. The agricultural workers were treated almost as slaves in earlier times. Even commercial adventurers preferred to have indentured labour; the notorious 'Regulations' had gone to the extent of making criminal offences out of refusal to work. (This was intended to safeguard the greed of the Indigo planters in the north). The enactment which prohibited slavery and its practices, did not quickly better the quality of their life. They had virtually no bargaining power with the all powerful landlord. Organisational activities were unknown. In such a situation, the weakling was the worker. 8. The worker was to be ready for the toil even before the reddish glow was seen in the eastern horizon. They had virtually no bargaining power with the all powerful landlord. Organisational activities were unknown. In such a situation, the weakling was the worker. 8. The worker was to be ready for the toil even before the reddish glow was seen in the eastern horizon. Even when he is ready, whether employment would be available at all, was a matter of disconcerting unpredictability. It entirely depended upon the sweet will and pleasure of landlord or his manager. 9. Times changed. Organised activities gave them swords and shields. The pendulum was moving. The entire scenery changed. Demands were conceded. Reforms were introduced. Rights were recognised. A right to continued work, though hedged in with conditions, was conferred by the Act. An enforceable right to be employed, as provided in the statute, was a new right for the agricultural workers. Rights in favour of the workers created liabilities for the landlords. The newly cast liability on the land owner is reflected in S.7(5)(d). Employment was the rule; denial was the exception. The limited nature of the contingencies for refusal of employment is discernible from S.7. 10. The Act, perhaps the first of its kind in India, has sought to give some substantial benefits on the agricultural workers. Security of Employment (S.7), provident fund (S.8 to 15), fixation of the hours of work (S.16), provision for intervals of rest (S.17), assurance about the payment of wages (Ss. 18 to 20), and doubling the wages for over time works (S.21), broadly constitute the heads of statutory bounties. A dispute resolving machinery is provided in Chap.5. The term agricultural dispute, is somewhat widely defined in S.2(c). A Conciliation Officer, a Tribunal and Inspectors are the main functionaries in the dispute settling machinery. The initiative of holding conciliation proceedings rests with the Conciliation Officer. If that officer finds that his labours are lost, he is to report it to the administrative head of the District. The District Collector can make a reference to the Agricultural Tribunal. Thereupon, the Tribunal shall hold its proceedings. One aspect, which has to be given special attention, is the insistence of an expeditious dealing of the dispute. The anxiety for speed, as observed by this Court in Padmanabhan Nair v. Thankappan, 1980 KLT 39, is understandable. An outer limit of 30 days is fixed for the submission of the award. Thereupon, the Tribunal shall hold its proceedings. One aspect, which has to be given special attention, is the insistence of an expeditious dealing of the dispute. The anxiety for speed, as observed by this Court in Padmanabhan Nair v. Thankappan, 1980 KLT 39, is understandable. An outer limit of 30 days is fixed for the submission of the award. The District Collector is to attend to the details of its publication and the transmission of copies to the concerned parties. (Much purpose does not appear to be served by this Section, which only adds to the clerical exercises and the delay in the publication of the award). Provisions are made for causing the publication. S.23 provides for the appeal from the orders of the Conciliation Officer. The decision of the Tribunal is final under the Act. The Tribunal is denuded of the power to grant stay of the operation of the order, pending disposal of the appeal. S.24 deals with the appeal in respect of wages and payments, as indicated therein. A power is reserved with the Government in referring any agricultural dispute to a Tribunal or to itself. The ramification of the Governmental powers are dealt with in S.26. Eight sections, contained in Chap. 6, deal with the penalties against those who obstruct the implementation of the Act or tamper with its procedural purity or violate the provisions of the settlement or award. A residual power for imposing penalty is conferred under S.30. Enhanced penalty, after previous conviction, is dealt with in S.31. As to how guilty companies have to be dealt with, is provided under S.32. Cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act, could be taken only on the complaint made in the manner provided therein. A time limit, as regards limitation of prosecutions, is prescribed under S.34. (It would prima facie appear to be a very unimaginative provision having regard to the practicalities confronting Governmental administration. Three months time for making the complaint, after the appropriate authority comes to know of the violation, is ideal and laudable, ordinarily. Under the present day circumstances, however, the provision would only give the free alibi to those entrusted with the implementation of the enactment, for a universal inaction). Three months time for making the complaint, after the appropriate authority comes to know of the violation, is ideal and laudable, ordinarily. Under the present day circumstances, however, the provision would only give the free alibi to those entrusted with the implementation of the enactment, for a universal inaction). The miscellaneous provisions, to aid the implementation of the Act such as the maintenance of registers and other particulars of workers by official agencies and by the law and order (S.35-36) and the recovery machinery (S.39 and 40), come within the miscellaneous group of Sections. A substantial section which has necessarily to be taken note of is S.37 which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the circumstances indicated therein. It reads: "Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts:-- No civil court shall entertain any suit or other proceedings to set aside or modify any order or decision passed by any authority or officer under this Act in respect of any of the matters falling within its or his scope." 11. The Government is empowered to grant exemptions in the manner provided in S.42. An overriding effect of the Act is indicated in S.41. The authority is conferred on the Government to delegate powers (under S.40) to remove difficulties (S.45) and to make rules (S.47). The members of the Board and officers appointed under the Act are by virtue of S.44 to be deemed as public servants under S.21 of the I.P.C. 12. The scheme of the enactment clearly demonstrates legislative intent to be exhaustive in relation to the conferment of rights of the agricultural workers and the manner in which those rights have to be worked out by different statutory functionaries at different levels. In other words, the exhaustive treatment of the enforcement of the newly conferred right, is clearly discernible from the statutory scheme. It may be that S.37 which enacts the express bar of jurisdiction of the civil courts, is restricted in its scope and amplitude. The reasons which impelled the Government to adopt a different phraseology from a corresponding section of another beneficial legislation like Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969 are not easily gatherable. Be that as it may, even if S.37 is not applicable on its terms, the jurisdiction of the civil court could be impliedly barred, if there are clear indications about the same. Be that as it may, even if S.37 is not applicable on its terms, the jurisdiction of the civil court could be impliedly barred, if there are clear indications about the same. Hazy things may not be sufficient for inferring ouster of jurisdiction. Solid projects and bold thrusts may, however, give comforting certainty. It is difficult to assume that a legislation which did not brook a delay exceeding 30 days in the resolution of an agricultural dispute, and which made detailed provisions for the making of the award, the transmission of the same to the District administrative Head, and the publication of such an award, visualised a second tier of proceedings in the civil courts, which burdened with accumulated arrears, are forced to consume time for effecting final disposals. A finality in relation to decisions, is indicated at the stage of the order of the Tribunal. That has been done by positive provisions. An overall view of the statutory provisions, compels the conclusion in favour of exclusion of civil courts' jurisdiction. 13. The principles are now well settled by pronouncements of the highest court and of this Court. As regards the comparable enactment of industrial dispute, some of the decisions which declared the ouster of civil court's jurisdiction are, State of Kerala v. Ramaswami Iyer & Sons, AIR 1966 SC 1738, Dhulabhai v. State of M.P. AIR 1969 SC 78 and Workmen of the Cochin Lighterage Corporation v. Paul Abrao,1974 KLT 61. 14. The concurrent conclusions of the courts below declaring the ouster of jurisdiction is therefore correct. The suit was for a declaration that the defendants were not agricultural workers and for consequential injunction. Whether a person is a worker or not is a matter which will come within the wide definition of the term 'agricultural dispute.' The question whether a person is a worker or not, or covered by the provisions of the enactment, is essentially an incidental question which the authority or Tribunal dealing with such a dispute has necessarily to adjudicate. It is thus well within the purview of the term 'agricultural dispute'. Resolution of such an agricultural dispute is to be attempted only by the invocation of the machinery provided under the Act itself. The appellants knocked at the wrong door when they came to the civil court. It is thus well within the purview of the term 'agricultural dispute'. Resolution of such an agricultural dispute is to be attempted only by the invocation of the machinery provided under the Act itself. The appellants knocked at the wrong door when they came to the civil court. The court below showed them the door so that they could correct their course and reach the place where relief, if at all, could be hoped for. The second appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs. Dismissed.