Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 4093 (MAD)

Petitioner v. Respondent

2014-11-03

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

body2014
Judgment Application No. 5443 of 2014 has been filed by the first defendant in the suit C.S. No. 561 of 2014 praying for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Heard Mr. M.S. Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant / first defendant and Mr. V. Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents / plaintiffs. 3. From the materials available on record, it is seen that the respondents / plaintiffs are all employees engaged for the services required at the common industrial establishment of the defendants in Chettinad House. The first defendant Company was set up in the year 1935 and engaged in the business of Textile and Granites and Silica. The plaintiffs had all been originally employed in various Companies with the Chettinad Group and had been transferred inter-se the group based on the requirements of the Group Companies from time to time. The plaintiffs have stated that such transfers indicate that notwithstanding the separate corporate entities, the defendants run a common industrial establishment in the Chettinad House and the plaintiffs have been since transferred employed only in the common industrial establishment for several years. While so, the defendants are seeking to frustrate the contract of the employment by denying the plaintiffs their lawful salaries for the services rendered and continue to render. It is stated that the defendants are not paying the salaries to the plaintiffs even though they continue to be discharging their duties there. Therefore, the plaintiffs, who are 27 in number, are claiming the unpaid salaries from January 2014 for the first plaintiff, from February 2014 for the second plaintiff and from May 2014 in respect of the other plaintiffs. As the defendants are jointly and severally responsible for the salary to the plaintiffs, the suit has been filed in August 2014 for the following reliefs:- (a) For a direction declaring the action of the Defendants in not paying the plaintiffs Wages/salaries, from January 2014 in respect of the first plaintiff, February 2014 as in the case of second plaintiff and from May 2014 for all the other plaintiffs as illegal. (b) To pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.31,15,319/-together with interest thereon from January 2014 in respect of first plaintiff, February 2014 as in the case of second plaintiff and from May 2014 for all the other plaintiffs till the date of actual payment. (c) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants jointly and severally from denying the salaries to the plaintiffs. (d) Directing the defendants to pay the plaintiffs costs of the suit. 4. Along with the plaint, the respondents / plaintiffs also had filed Original Application No. 673 of 2014 seeking for injunction restraining the respondents jointly and severally from denying the salaries to the plaintiffs / applicants pending disposal of the suit. 5. Mr. M.S. Krishnan, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants / defendants contended that the suit is not maintainable in view of bar in the jurisdiction in view of Clause 14 of the Letters Patent where the plaintiff has several causes of action against the defendants and if the High Court shall have original jurisdiction in respect of one of such clauses, it shall be lawful to combine all the causes of action. In this case, there is not even one cause of action, for the High Court to have original jurisdiction as none of the claims in respect of each of the contesting respondents is more than Rs. 25 Lakhs in value. Therefore, it was contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants / defendants that this Court has original jurisdiction in respect of not even one of the 27 causes of action. Therefore, the said causes of action cannot be combined. It was further contended that Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC is attracted to the facts of the case and hence, the plaint has to be rejected. 6. Though the respondents / plaintiffs had not filed any counter, learned Senior Counsel Mr. V. Prakash contended that as per Order I Rule 1 CPC, the suit filed as it is, is maintainable. In this regard, it would be worthwhile to extract Order I Rule 1, which reads as follows:- “1. 6. Though the respondents / plaintiffs had not filed any counter, learned Senior Counsel Mr. V. Prakash contended that as per Order I Rule 1 CPC, the suit filed as it is, is maintainable. In this regard, it would be worthwhile to extract Order I Rule 1, which reads as follows:- “1. Who may be joined as plaintiffs.-- All persons may be joined in one suit as plaintiffs where-- (a) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist in such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and (b) if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise.” 7. It was pointed out that as per the above said Order I Rule 1(B) CPC even if all the plaintiffs brought separate suits as common question of law or fact arises for consideration, the single suit was maintainable.Learned Senior Counsel relied on O.II R.3 CPC which reads as follows:- “3. Joinder of causes of action.-- (1) Save as otherwise provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly; and any plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly may unite such causes of action in the same suit. (2) Where causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject-matters at the date of instituting the suit.” 8. It was contended that though the plaintiffs have got individual cause of action as the reliefs sought for by each of them is independent, the causes of action are united. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject matter on the date of instituting the suit. No doubt, the plaintiffs in paragraph 8 of the plaint, have set out the statement of unpaid salaries to them. Though there are 27 plaintiffs, not even one of the claim is more than Rs.25 Lakhs. However, combining the total claim of all the 27 plaintiffs, the total claim comes to Rs.32,46,179/-. No doubt, the plaintiffs in paragraph 8 of the plaint, have set out the statement of unpaid salaries to them. Though there are 27 plaintiffs, not even one of the claim is more than Rs.25 Lakhs. However, combining the total claim of all the 27 plaintiffs, the total claim comes to Rs.32,46,179/-. Based on the strength of this figure, the suit has been filed on the Original Side of this Court as the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court extends to the claim of Rs.25 Lakhs or more. As per the City Civil Courts Act, all suits of value of less than Rs. 25 lakhs shall be filed only in the City Civil Court. The plaint has been filed before this Court taking into consideration the total claim in the suit which is Rs.32 Lakhs and above, invoking the pecuniary jurisdiction fixed by this Court. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents / plaintiffs placing reliance on the decision of this Court in The Madras Race Club vs. M. Victor [ 2013 (6) CTC 481 ], argued that though the salaries of the plaintiffs have been denied by the defendants, the plaintiffs continue to be employed in the respective categories and have been discharging their duties. It was pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs that even in the affidavit filed in the petition to reject the plaint, the applicants / defendants have not come up with any statement whether the jural relationship of employer – employee continues or severed. It is submitted that the defendants have also not made any statement about the continuance of the employment of the plaintiffs with the defendants and that as the defendants are unauthorisedly withholding the salaries due to the employees, viz., the plaintiffs, they are constrained to file the suit. As there is no explicit order of termination or any other communication to the plaintiffs regarding their non-entitlement of salary and when there is no specific order of termination, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the Civil Court can exercise plenary jurisdiction. 10. On the other hand, it is seen that the defendant has raised an objection about the Court Fees payable on the suit. 10. On the other hand, it is seen that the defendant has raised an objection about the Court Fees payable on the suit. Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act requires the aggregate Court fee to be reckoned on the basis of claim in respect of each cause of action and not on the aggregate claim combining all causes of action. From the a perusal of the record, it is seen that the Court fee has been paid taking into consideration the entire value of the claim of the plaintiffs altogether. But, according to the defendant, it was incorrect and the respondents / plaintiffs should be directed to reckon the Court fees properly with respect to each cause of action. 11. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment in The Madras Race Club case (cited supra) wherein in paragraphs 63 and 64, it has been held that the concerted action gives rise to a single cause of action. The above said paragraphs 63 and 64 are usefully re-produced below:- Para 63: “Interestingly, Labour Law recognises concerted action, on the part of the Workers. Therefore, as a corollary, it is possible that a singular act of omission or commission on the part of the Management, could give rise to a single cause of action for the Workers. In simple terms, a strike is a concerted refusal on the part of the Workers to perform their obligations. A lay off, lock out or closure, is a singular act on the part of the Management, that could give rise to a single cause of action for the Workers to take up. Para 64: Whenever the Management of Factories or Industrial establishments seek protective orders from Civil Courts at the time of labour unrest, for the safe removal of the stock in trade or for the safe passage of Management category employees, they value the reliefs sought, on the basis of the fiction that the concerted action on the part of the Workers has given rise to a single cause of action. Otherwise, they would be called upon to value the reliefs separately as against each Workmen. This does not happen, on account of the recognition of the fact that a concerted action gives rise to a single cause of action.” 12. Otherwise, they would be called upon to value the reliefs separately as against each Workmen. This does not happen, on account of the recognition of the fact that a concerted action gives rise to a single cause of action.” 12. In dealing with Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint, this Court has to only examine whether the six limbs of Rule 11 are applicable to the plaint for rejection of the same. Encouraged by the decision cited earlier in The Madras Race Club case (cited supra), learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submitted that the concerted action on the part of the workers will give rise to a single cause of action in this case also. It was pointed out that each of the worker was denied his lawful earnings by the defendant employer and, therefore, it has given rise to a single cause of action. 13. A mere reading of the judgment cited supra would show that while dealing with Order VII Rule 11 CPC, in the above said judgment, Clause 14 of the Letters Patent was not adverted to. As per Clause 11 of the Letters Patent, the civil jurisdiction of the High Court is ordained. For easy understanding of the case, Clause 11 is extracted hereunder:- “11. Local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the High Court.-- And we do hereby ordain that the said High Court of Judicature at Madras shall have and exercise ordinary original civil jurisdiction within such local limits as may from time to time be declared and prescribed by any law made by the Governor-in-Council, and, until some local limits shall be so declared and prescribed within the limits of the local jurisdiction of the said High Court of Madras at the date of the publication of these presents, and the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the said High Court shall not extend beyond the limits for the time being declared and prescribed as the local limits of such jurisdiction.” 14. Clause 14 of the Letters Patent deals with joinder of several causes of action and the same reads as follows:- “14. Clause 14 of the Letters Patent deals with joinder of several causes of action and the same reads as follows:- “14. Joinder of several causes of action.-- And we do further ordain that where plaintiff has several causes of action against defendant, such causes of action not being for land or other immovable property, and the said High Court shall have original jurisdiction in respect of one of such causes of action, it shall be lawful for the said High Court to call on the defendant to show cause why the several causes of action should not be joined together in one suit, and to make such order for trial of the same as the High Court shall seem fit.” 15. As per clause 14, when there are several causes of action, if the High Court shall have original jurisdiction in respect of one of such causes of action, it shall be lawful for the High Court to call on the defendants why the causes of action cannot be joined together in one suit. In the case on hand, as pointed out earlier, none of the plaintiffs have their individual claim exceeding Rs. 25 Lakhs giving rise to the causes of action to this Court. Admittedly, it is only the combined calculation gives rise to the cause of action to this Court. Therefore, applying Clause 14 of the Letters Patent to the given set of facts, this Court cannot have jurisdiction and the suit cannot be entertained. The decision in The Madras Race Club case (cited supra), in my considered opinion, had lost sight of Clause 14 of the Letters Patent while deciding the question under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and when the plaintiffs have several causes of action. 16. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants / defendants seeks in aid the decision in Sundaram Finance Limited vs. M/s The Craftsman Private Limited [2003 (2) TLNJ 257] and more particularly, relied on the following passage:- “A reading of this Clause – 14 makes it clear that if the High Court has original jurisdiction in respect of one such causes of action, it shall be lawful to combine all such causes of action. As per the City Civil Court Act, all suits of value less than Rs.10 Lakhs shall be filed only in the City Civil Court, one of the cardinal principles of interpretation of statutes is that the interpretation shall be in such a manner not to invalidate any statute, unless the statute is invalid or unenforceable, for some reason, such as legislative competence or violation of the provisions of the Constitution. Wherever permissible the provisions of the Act shall be harmoniously construed in such a manner the provisions are valid. Therefore, while considering the provisions of Section 12 of the Letters Patent and provisions of the City Civil Court Act, the rule of harmonious construction should be applied. This is, the provisions of Letters Patent and that of the Civil Court Act should be construed in such a manner that provisions under both the Acts are valid. Applying such interpretation it is clear that in so far suits of the value less that Rs.10 Lakhs, it is only the City Civil Court that has jurisdiction. If it is not so construed, the provisions of City Civil Court Act would become ineffective. Such a construction is impermissible. Therefore, all suits for value less than Rs.10 lakhs shall be filed only in the City Civil Court. Under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent, where the plaintiff has several causes of action against the defendants and if the High Court shall have original jurisdiction in respect of one such cases, it shall be lawful to combine all the causes of action. Therefore, atleast with respect to one cause of action, the High Court should have original jurisdiction. But none of the claims in the hire purchase agreement individually, is more than Rs. 10 lakhs in value. Therefore, High Court does not have original jurisdiction in respect of any one of the three hire purchase agreements. Therefore, the causes of action cannot be combined.” 17. The above said judgment has been followed by this Court in M.K.Sathyanarayana Rao vs. M/s International Sales [A. No. 6411 of 2009 in C.S. No. 859 of 2009] disposed on 31.3.2010. The said judgment also followed the decision of this Court in The Food Corporation of India, rep. by its Senior Regional Manager, Madras – 6 vs. M/s Mayavaram Pinaricial Syndicate, rep. by the Managing Partner P. Kalyanasundaram [ 1993 (2) LW 453 ]. 18. The said judgment also followed the decision of this Court in The Food Corporation of India, rep. by its Senior Regional Manager, Madras – 6 vs. M/s Mayavaram Pinaricial Syndicate, rep. by the Managing Partner P. Kalyanasundaram [ 1993 (2) LW 453 ]. 18. Clause 14 of the Letters Patent does not prescribe any pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. It simply says that High Court shall have original jurisdiction in respect of one of such causes of action. 19. Section 15 CPC directs that every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it. Insofar as the city of Madras is concerned, there are three different grades of Courts having Original Civil jurisdiction, viz., High Court of Madras, City Civil Court and Small Causes Court. The suits are filed in the respective Courts depending on the pecuniary limits that is fixed from time to time. The object of Section 15 CPC, therefore, seems to prevent overcrowding of suits of lower grade being tried at superior Courts. 20. Section 6 CPC which prescribes pecuniary jurisdiction says a court of limited pecuniary jurisdiction shall not exceed its jurisdiction and not vice versa. As per the City Civil Court Act, all suits of value less than Rs. 25 Lakhs shall be filed in the City Civil Court. Therefore, considering the provisions of Letters Patent and that of the City Civil Court Act, the provisions of both Acts should be valid. In that interpretation, it is amply clear that no suit above the value of Rs. 25 Lakhs can be filed in City Civil Court. If it is not understood thus, then the provisions of City Civil Court Act would becomes ineffective or meaningless. 21. In the light of the foregoing discussion and in view of Clause 14 of the Letters Patent and taking into consideration the fact that not even one of the causes of action gives rise to the jurisdiction within this Court, I am of the opinion that the other causes of action though may not have the required pecuniary jurisdiction, cannot be combined to have a single cause of action and maintain the suit. However, the plaint cannot be rejected. It can only be directed to be presented before the appropriate forum. In the result, Application No. 5443 of 2014 stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, Original Application No. 673 of 2014 is closed. However, the plaint cannot be rejected. It can only be directed to be presented before the appropriate forum. In the result, Application No. 5443 of 2014 stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, Original Application No. 673 of 2014 is closed. The Registry is directed to return the plaint and the respondent is directed to represent the same before the Court having jurisdiction.