Judgment 1. Having heard the counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner at length i am satisfied that the Court beiow has committed no error of jurisdiction in rejecting the plaint. I may mention that the dispute is with regard to extension of service of employees of I.T.C. Ltd. Company to be a Public Limited incorporated under the provision of Companies Act. The dispute is essentially a dispute with regard to service conditions. The Apex Court on a number of occasions has held that Civil Court jurisdiction in such matters are barred. A reference may be made to 2006(1) S.C.C. 59 and 61 as aiso 2005(7) S.C.C. 447 . The plaint was rightly rejected in terms of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. I may in this regard quote from the case of N.V. Srinivamurthy V/s. Mariyamma 2005(5) S.C.C. 548 wherein their Lordships in para 7 have quoted from an earlier judgment of the Apex Court in the case of 1977(4) S.C.C. 467 . "The trial Court must remember that if on a meaningful-no-formal-reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue it should exercise its power under Order VII. Rule II C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, the Court must nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X, C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial Courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men, and must be triggered against them." 2. I accordingly, find that this Petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.