JUDGMENT : S.N. Variava, J. Delay condoned. 2. One of the questions raised in these Appeals is whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the Suit filed by the Respondent for setting aside an order of termination and for consequential declarations. This question is no longer res-integra. 3. This Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation And Another v. Krishna Kant And Others reported in (1995) 5 SCC 75 and in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Others v. Zakir Hussain reported in (2005) 7 SCC 447 and in an unreported Order of this Court dated 6th October, 2005 in Civil Appeal No.3428 of 2003 (Rajasthan State Road Trpt. Corpn. & Ors. v. Khadarmal) has held that a Civil Court has no jurisdiction. In view of these decisions, it has to be held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to grant a relief of reinstatement and the consequential reliefs. Thus, the orders passed are without jurisdiction and are hereby set aside. 4. Reliance was placed upon para 37 of the Judgment in Krishna Kant 's case (supra) which reads as follows:- "It is directed that the principles enunciated in this judgment shall apply to all pending matters except where decrees have been passed by the trial court and the matters are pending in appeal or second appeal, as the case may be. All suits pending in the trial court shall be governed by the principles enunciated herein - as also the suits and proceedings to be instituted hereinafter." 5. It was submitted that even in this case the Suit was filed much before this Judgment was delivered. It was submitted that the decree had also been passed before this Judgment was delivered. It was submitted that this Court should also hold that the decree is not affected by the Judgment of this Court. Para 37 of Krishna Kant's case (supra) has been considered by this Court in para 35 of Zakir Hussain's case (supra). It has been held that once it is held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction the consequence must follow. This view has been reiterated by this Court in the unreported Judgment in Khadarmal's case (supra). Therefore, it is not possible to accept this submission. 6. It has been held that once it is held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction the consequence must follow. This view has been reiterated by this Court in the unreported Judgment in Khadarmal's case (supra). Therefore, it is not possible to accept this submission. 6. It is next submitted that some time be given to the Respondent to obtain appropriate orders from the Industrial Court or the Labour Court to which a reference may be made by the State Government. 7. In our view, considering the fact that the Respondents have been working in most cases since 1990 or prior thereto, it would be appropriate that we direct the State Government to make a Reference under Section 10, to the appropriate Court, within a period of three months from today. A copy of this Order to be sent to the State Government forthwith. The Respondent will be at liberty to apply for interim relief before that Court. Such application, if made, will undoubtedly be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. The Appellants are directed to maintain status quo for a period of four months from today. 8. We clarify that if any back-wages have been paid, they shall not be recovered. If, however, they have not been paid there will now be no question of paying the same. 9. It must also be clarified that Mr. Jain has based his submission on the basis that according to the Appellants, they are an industry. 10. The Appellants will therefore not contend nor be allowed to contend before the appropriate Court that they are not an industry. 11. The Appeals stand disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.