ORDER : Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. In all the Civil Second Appeals, identical questions have been raised by the appellants and are directed against the orders dated 29.03.2007, 26.02.1996, 24.11.1998, 01.02.2003 & 01.2.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Additional District Judge No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Additional District Judge No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur & Additional District Judge No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur. In all the appeals, the question posed is as to whether in these cases, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the civil suit or as to whether the nature of dispute being such, it is required to be considered under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Therefore, all these appeals with the consent of counsels are being decided by this common order. The facts of the leading case bearing S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.597 of 2007 are taken into consideration. 2. The brief facts noticed are that the appellant is a Government of Rajasthan undertaking and the respondent-plaintiff was an employee of the Appellants and has preferred a suit for declaration of termination from service as invalid which was decreed by the Court below and the appeal has been dismissed. The following issues were framed which reads as under:- 1- vk;k oknh ds fo:) izfroknhx.k }kjk okni= esa of.kZr vk/kkjksa ij ikfjr vkns'k dzekad 5318 fnuakd 27-8-2002 ds }kjk oknh ls :i;s 86]382@& :i;s olwyh dk vkns'k voS/k ,oa uSlfxZd U;kf;d fl)kUrksa ds foijhr gS\ oknh 2- vk;k fookfnr vkns'k dzekad 5318 fnuakd 22-8-2002 ds lEcU/k esa ;fn oknh ds osru ls dksbZ dVkSrh dj yh x;h gS rks oknh mDr dVkSrh dh x;h jkf'k vBkjg izfr'kr C;kt lfgr izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ oknh 3- vk;k oknh }kjk okn dk ewY;kadu lgh ugha djus ,oa i;kZIr U;k; 'kqYd] vnk ugha djus ds dkj.k oknh dk okn fujLruh; gS\ izfroknhx.k 4- vk;k oknksrj ds pj.k la[;k&8 esa of.kZrkuqlkj orZeku okn dh lquokbZ dk bl U;k;ky; dks {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gS\ izfroknhx.k 5- vuqrks"kA 3. The Trial Court insofar as issue No.1 is concerned, held that there was violation of principles of natural justice as no notice was given to the respondent-plaintiff and accordingly decided the said Issue in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The same was assailed before the Appellate Court in appeal. The Trial Court insofar as issue No.1 is concerned, held that there was violation of principles of natural justice as no notice was given to the respondent-plaintiff and accordingly decided the said Issue in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The same was assailed before the Appellate Court in appeal. The Appellate Court also after taking into consideration the facts found and noticed, held that there was violation of principles of natural justice and accordingly dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant herein. Both the Courts held that they (Civil Court) had jurisdiction though there was a serious objection all throughout by the appellants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction on the issue and the same was required to be pursued before the Labour Court because as per the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred. Counsel contended that once the learned Trial Court has no jurisdiction then the decree passed by the Trial Court becomes a nullity and this aspect has completely been overlooked by both the Courts below by decreeing the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff. It has also been contended that there was no violation of principles of natural justice. As per the standing orders, the orders were passed and such an issue pertains to a service dispute. 5. Counsel for the appellants also relied upon earlier judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Others v. Zakir Hussain (2005) 7 SCC 447 and also a latest judgment in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Others v. Deen Dayal Sharma (2010) 6 SCC 697 where the Apex Court has held that if dismissal was contrary to the standing orders without holding any departmental enquiry then it would be adjudicated only in Industrial Tribunal and not in civil Court. Counsel for the appellants also relied upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of R.S.R.T.C. Through Managing Director v. Suraj Narain Jangid & Another in SB Civil Writ Petition No.4504/2006 decided on 18.07.2016 and contended that the issue being squarely covered, is required to be held in favour of the appellants. 6. Per-contra, ld. 6. Per-contra, ld. Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff vehemently contended that from the averments of the plaint and the issue decided by the Trial Court, it is crystal clear that principles of natural justice have been violated and specific and concurrent finding by both the Courts below have been recorded that once an issue is raised about violation of principles of natural justice, the jurisdiction is with the Civil Court and is not barred. Counsel further contended that this issue has come up before the Apex Court in number of cases and also relied upon the judgment of Full Bench of Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Another v. Bal Mukund Bairwa (2) (2009) 4 SCC 299 which had also taken into consideration the self same question and has held that it depends upon nature of the matter and issues involved, and if the dispute arises out of rights and obligations under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 or sister laws like Industrial Employment (standing orders) Act, 1946, Civil Court's jurisdiction is barred but if, however, employer-employee dispute pertain to matters like non-observance of principles of natural justice or constitutional provisions, Civil Suit is maintainable. Counsel also contended that the earlier judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Zakir Hussain (supra) was considered by the Apex Court and distinguished. 7. Counsel also contended that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in number of cases relating to appellant itself has held that only Civil Court has jurisdiction and relied upon judgments in the case of R.S.R.T.C, Jaipur & Ors. v. Mahavir Prasad Sharma in (SB Civil Second Appeal No.266/2000) decided on 15.01.2014, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur & Anr. v. Prakash David in (SB Civil Second Appeal No.40/2005) decided on 12.02.2015, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur & Anr. v. Bhanwar Singh in (SB Civil Second Appeal No.86/1996) decided on 31.03.2016 & Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. v. Narain Singh in (SB Civil Second Appeal No.396/1996) decided on 23.09.2015. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned orders and the judgment cited at the bar. 9. v. Bhanwar Singh in (SB Civil Second Appeal No.86/1996) decided on 31.03.2016 & Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. v. Narain Singh in (SB Civil Second Appeal No.396/1996) decided on 23.09.2015. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned orders and the judgment cited at the bar. 9. The substantial question of law admitted by this Court is as under:- "Whether, the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent in view of the judgment given by the Hon'ble supreme Court in case of RSRTC v. Zakir Hussain?" 10. The issue which was decided by the Trial Court has already been referred to herein above and in my view, there was prime issue of violation of principles of natural justice and both the Courts below have come to a finding of fact that there was non-observance of principles of natural justice and without issuing notice or show cause, the proceedings were initiated and adverse order was passed, detrimental to the respondents and behind their back. 11. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Zakir Hussain (supra) was considered by the Full Bench of Apex Court in the case of Bal Mukund Bairwa (2) (supra). It would be appropriate to quote para No.48, 49 & 50 of the said judgment which in my view, supports the case of the respondent-plaintiff, which reads as under:- "48. In a case where no enquiry has been conducted, there would be a violation of the statutory regulation as also the right of equality as contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In such situation, a civil suit will be maintainable for the purpose of declaration that the termination of service was illegal and the consequences flowing therefrom. However, we may hasten to add that if a suit is filed alleging violation of a right by a workman and a corresponding obligation on the part of the employer under the Industrial Disputes Act or the Certified Standing Orders, a civil suit may not lie. However, we may hasten to add that if a suit is filed alleging violation of a right by a workman and a corresponding obligation on the part of the employer under the Industrial Disputes Act or the Certified Standing Orders, a civil suit may not lie. However, if no procedure has been followed as laid down by the statutory regulation or is otherwise imperative even under the common law or the principles of natural justice, which right having arisen under the existing law, subpara (2) of para 23 of the law laid down in Premier Automobiles Ltd. Shall prevail. 49. An assumption on the part of this Court that all such cases would fall only under the Industrial Dispute Act or sister laws and thus, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would be barred, in our opinion, may not be the correct interpretation of Premier Automobiles Ltd. Which being a three-judge Bench judgment and having followed Dhulabhai, which is a Constitution Bench judgment, is binding on us. 50. We may also observe that the application of the doctrine of prospective overruling in Krishna Kant may not be correct because either a Court has the requisit jurisdiction or it does not have. It is a well-settled principle of law that the Court cannot confer jurisdiction where there is none and neither can the parties confer jurisdiction upon a Court by consent. If a Court decides a matter without jurisdiction as has rightly been pointed out in Zakir Hussain in view of the seven-Judge Bench decision of this Court in A.R. Antulay, the same would be a nullity and thus, the doctrine of prospective overrulling shall not apply in such cases. Even otherwise, the doctrine of prospective overruling has a limited application. It ordinarily applies where a statute is declared ultra vires and not in a case where the decree or order is passed by a Court/tribunal in respect whereof it had no jurisdiction." 12. In my view, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Deen Dayal Sharma (supra) is distinguishable on the facts noticed herein before. It ordinarily applies where a statute is declared ultra vires and not in a case where the decree or order is passed by a Court/tribunal in respect whereof it had no jurisdiction." 12. In my view, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Deen Dayal Sharma (supra) is distinguishable on the facts noticed herein before. The Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Mahavir Prasad Sharma (supra), Prakash David (supra), Bhanwar Singh (supra) & Narain Singh (supra) have on the self-same question taken into consideration the various judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court and held that if there is violation of principles of natural justice than only Civil Court had the jurisdiction and in all such cases, the question was answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. 13. In my view, the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of Court in the case of Suraj Narain Jangid & Another (supra) is distinguishable on facts because it was a writ petition challenging the order under Order 7, Rule 11 and, in fact, the judgment of the Full Bench of Apex Court in the case of Bal Mukund Bairwa (2) (supra) was not cited before the Bench and not considered. Even the judgments of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court referred to in para-11 was not at all referred. 14. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and in view of what has been observed herein above, in my view, the judgments of Bal Mukund Bairwa (2) and the judgments of this Court (supra) squarely supports the claim of the respondent-plaintiff and there being a concurrent finding by both the Courts below, the appeals preferred by the appellants stand dismissed and the question of law is answered in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and against the appellants with no order as to cost. Appeal Dismissed - Question of Law Answered in Favour of Plaintiff.