JUDGMENT : Prakash Gupta, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Since in both the aforementioned second appeals a common question `whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the plaintiff's suit in the facts and circumstances of the present case?' arises, therefore, both the appeals are heard together and the same are being decided by this common judgment. 3. In both the second appeals filed under Section 100 CPC the judgment and decree dated 1st October, 2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur is challenged whereby the learned lower appellate court has dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 19th September, 1994 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in civil suit Nos.810/1988 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff respondent for declaration. 4. Briefly stated the facts relevant to decide the instant appeal are that the plaintiff respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that order No.1728 dated 16th March, 1985 removing him from service on the ground of misconduct for carrying passengers without ticket and also the order dated 21st June, 1986, by which, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the order of his removal from service be declared illegal being in violation of principles of natural justice and the same be quashed and declare that the plaintiff be deemed to have been in service. 5. Since, the appellants failed to file written statement, their right to file written statement was closed and, no issues were framed in the suit. Plaintiff Om Prakash examined himself as PW.1. No witness was examined by the defendants-appellants. 6. After hearing both the parties, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 19th September, 1994 decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent by quashing the orders passed by the defendants-appellants and held that the plaintiff respondent was entitled to all the consequential benefits as if the impugned orders had never been passed. No witness was examined by the defendants-appellants. 6. After hearing both the parties, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 19th September, 1994 decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent by quashing the orders passed by the defendants-appellants and held that the plaintiff respondent was entitled to all the consequential benefits as if the impugned orders had never been passed. The relevant portion of the judgment of the trial court reads as follows:- ^^bl izdkj oknh us okni= ds rF;ksa fd rkbZn dh gSa fd mls nLrkost miyC/k ugha djk;s x;s] tkWap esa fuxe ds xokgku ds c;ku mlds lkeus ugha fy;s x;s] uk gh ftjg dk volj fn;k x;k rFkk uk gh lcwr lQkbZ is'k djus dk volj fn;k x;kA blds [k.Mu esa dksbZ lk{; ;k nLrkost ugha gSaA ,slh fLFkfr esa tkap dk;Zokgh nks"kiw.kZ izrhr gksrh gSa tcfd tkap dk;Zokgh nks"kiw.kZ o uSlfxZd U;kf;d fl)kUrksa ds foijhr gS rks blds vk/kkj ij tks lsok i`FkDdj.k vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gSa og Hkh voS/k o uSlfxZd U;kf;d fl)kUrksa ds foijhr gSaA oknh us okni= o l'kiFk dFkuksa esa Li"V :i ls dgk gSa fd foHkkxh; vihy dh Fkh tks 21-06-1986 dks [kkfjt gks x;hA izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls blds [k.Mu esa dksbZ tokc ;k lk{; ugha gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g ekuk tkosxk fd fnukad 21-06-1986 dks oknh dh vihy fujLr gqbZ gSa rFkk nkok fnukad 02-06-1988 dks is'k gks x;k blfy, ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd nkok fe;kn lhek esa ugha gksA ,slh fLFkfr esa oknh dk lsok i`FkDdj.k vkns'k o vihyh; vkns'k voS/k gSaA vr% okn oknh fMdz fd;k tkdj vkns'k fn;k tkuk mfpr gSaA^^ Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the defendants-appellants filed civil first appeal before the lower appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 1st October, 2002. 7. 7. So far as the issue regarding non-observance of the principles of natural justice, the learned appellate court has dealt with the issue in the following manner:- ^^oknh izR;FkhZ us vius okn i= esa ;g vafdr fd;k Fkk fd mls fnukad 07-04-1984 o 16-06-1981 dks vkjksi i= fn;k x;k FkkA nkSjkus tkap f'kdk;rdrkZ ds c;ku oknh ds lkeus ugha fy;s x;s vkSj u gh mls xokg ls ftjg djus dk ekSdk fn;k x;kA lQkbZ esa dksbZ xokg izLrqr djus dk ekSdk rdZ ugha fn;k x;kA bruk gh ugha n.M ds ifj.kke ij lqus mls lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k x;k rFkk mDr lsok i`FkDdj.k vkns'k ds fo:) vihy dh Fkh tks Hkh fcuk rdZlaxr dkj.k ds fnukad 21-06-1986 dks [kkfjt dj nh xbZA oknh izR;FkhZ us vius bl okn i= ds leFkZu esa Lo;a dks ih0MCyw0 1 ds :i esa izLrqr v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds le{k fd;k ftlesa mlus ;g dFku fd;k fd fnukad 24-03-1984 dks mlds fo:) xyr rjhds ls fjekdZ yxk;k x;k FkkA vkjksi i= fn;k x;k Fkk] ysfdu vkjksi i= ls lacaf/kr dksbZ nLrkostkr miyC/k ugha djk, x;sA vkjksi i= lsa lEcfU/kr fcuk fVdV ;k=h ds c;ku rd ys[kc) ugha fd;s x;s vkSj ugh oDr fujh{k.k dsl cSysUl fd;k x;kA f'kdk;rdrkZ ds c;ku Hkh oknh izR;FkhZ ds lkeus ugha fy;s x;s vkSj u gh ftjg djus dk o lcwrlQkbZ is'k djus dk volj fn;k x;kA bl izdkj oknh izR;FkhZ us vius okn i= esa tks rF; vafdr fd, mu rF;ksa dh rkbZn dh gSA vihykFkhZ izfroknhx.k dh rjQ ls dksbZ tokcnsgh izLrqr ugha dh xbZ vkSj u gh oknh izR;FkhZ ds dFkuksa ds [k.Mu esa dksbZ lk{; ;k nLrkost izLrqr fd;s x;sA fuf'pr :i esa ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa oknh izR;FkhZ ds fo:) tks dk;Zokgh dh xbZ Fkh og nks"kiw.kZ izrhr gksrh gSA tkap dk;Zokgh nks"kiw.kZ Fkh o uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kUrksa ds foijhr FkhA fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us bl lHkh ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fopkj dj lsok i`FkDdj.k vkns'k dks voS/k] uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kUrksa ds foijhr ik;k gS tks mfpr gSA^^ 8. Hence, the present second appeal. 9. On 10th September, 2007, the appeals were admitted on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the plaintiff's suit in the facts and circumstances of the present case ?" 10. The same question came up for consideration before a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Hon'ble Mr. 9. On 10th September, 2007, the appeals were admitted on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the plaintiff's suit in the facts and circumstances of the present case ?" 10. The same question came up for consideration before a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jainendra Kumar Ranka) in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.597/2007 and batch of appeals filed by the appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. v. Gagan Kumar Jain & Ors. The coordinate Bench, placing reliance on the Constitutional Bench's judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Zakir Hussain (2005) 7 SCC 447 which was relied by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Another v. Bal Mukund Bairwa (2) (2009) 4 SCC 299 dismissed the appeals filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vide judgment dated 4th November, 2016. 11. In the case of Bal Mukund Bairwa (supra) where the same question was involved, the Supreme Court has held that it depends upon the 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(s) pertain to matters like non-observance of principles of natural justice or constitutional provisions, Civil Suit is maintainable. (emphasis applied by the court).It would be appropriate to quote the relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bal Mukund Bairwa (supra) which are as follows: "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, sub-para (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 requisite 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 overruling 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. Now, the question for consideration before this court is whether the respondent violated the principles of natural justice ? The trial court framed issue No.2 in this regard and decided the same against the appellants holding that the plaintiff challenged the various orders passed against him on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, the civil court has jurisdiction to try the suit. 13. The trial court framed issue No.2 in this regard and decided the same against the appellants holding that the plaintiff challenged the various orders passed against him on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, the civil court has jurisdiction to try the suit. 13. In view of this finding and the settled legal proposition of law, the substantial question of law formulated in the appeal is answered against the defendants-appellants and in favour of the plaintiff respondent holding that no illegality was committed by the trial court in entertaining the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent where violation of principles of natural justice was alleged. 14. Consequently, both the second appeals fail and are, dismissed with no orders as to cost.