JUDGMENT : Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This civil second appeal has been preferred against the judgement and decree dated 18.10.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for brevity, "the learned appellate Court") in Regular Civil Appeal No.139/1990 whereby, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellants/defendants (for brevity, "the defendants"), the judgement dated 25.03.1989 passed by the learned Upper Munsif Magistrate No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for brevity, "the learned trial Court") decreeing the Civil Suit No.524/88 (548/86) filed by the respondent/plaintiff (for brevity, "the plaintiff") for declaration, has been affirmed. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the defendants stating therein that while working as a permanent conductor with the defendants, he was served upon with a charge-sheet dated 30.03.1981 levelling allegation that he was found carrying 14 passengers without ticket and was issued another charge-sheet dated 27.05.1982 with similar allegation for different route. It was averred that without giving him proper opportunity of hearing and defence, vide order dated 19.02.1983, his services were terminated and the appeal preferred there against has also been dismissed vide order dated 03.01.1984. Alleging that the enquiry against him was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice, the decree as aforesaid was prayed for. 3. The defendants in their joint written statement submitted that enquiry against the plaintiff was conducted in accordance with the Standing Order. In the additional plea, it was stated that since, the plaintiff is a workman, only the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court has jurisdiction to hear the dispute and not the Civil Court. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed five issues including relief. Issue no.3 pertained to as to whether the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the suit. After recording evidence of the plaintiff as the defendants did not lead any evidence despite opportunities, the learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgement dated 25.03.1989. The civil first appeal preferred there against by the defendants has been dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide judgement and decree dated 18.10.1995. 5. While admitting the appeal, this Court framed following substantial question of law:- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent". 6. The civil first appeal preferred there against by the defendants has been dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide judgement and decree dated 18.10.1995. 5. While admitting the appeal, this Court framed following substantial question of law:- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent". 6. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that since the enquiry was conducted as per the Standing Order, the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute which could be entertained only by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. He further submits that since, the plaintiff was on probation, his services could have been terminated even without holding any enquiry. He, therefore, prays that the civil second appeal be allowed, the judgement and decree dated 18.10.1995 be quashed and set aside and the suit be dismissed. 7. Heard. Considered. 8. It is a well settled legal principle that if order of punishment passed in a departmental enquiry is sought to be challenged alleging violation of the principles of natural justice, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. A Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has, in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Bal Mukund Bairwa- (2009) 4 SCC 299 , held as under:- "36. If an employee intends to enforce his constitutional rights or a right under a statutory Regulation, the civil court will have the necessary jurisdiction to try a suit. If, however, he claims his right and corresponding obligations only in terms of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act or the sister laws so called, the civil court will have none. In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, it would not be correct to contend that only because the employee concerned is also a workman within the meaning of the provisions of the 1947 Act or the conditions of his service are otherwise governed by the Standing Orders certified under the 1946 Act, ipso facto the Civil Court will have no jurisdiction. This aspect of the matter has recently been considered by this Court in Rajasthan SRTC v. Mohar Singh- (2008) 5 SCC 542 . The question as to whether the civil court's jurisdiction is barred or not must be determined having regard to the facts of each case. 37. This aspect of the matter has recently been considered by this Court in Rajasthan SRTC v. Mohar Singh- (2008) 5 SCC 542 . The question as to whether the civil court's jurisdiction is barred or not must be determined having regard to the facts of each case. 37. If the infringement of the Standing Orders or other provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are alleged, the civil court's jurisdiction may be held to be barred but if the suit is based on the violation of principles of common law or constitutional provisions or on other grounds, the civil court's jurisdiction may not be held to be barred. If no right is claimed under a special statute in terms whereof the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred, the civil court will have jurisdiction. 38. Where the relationship between the parties as employer and employee is contractual, the right to enforce the contract of service depending on personal volition of an employer, is prohibited in terms of section 14(1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It has, however, four exceptions, namely, (1) when an employee enjoys a status, i.e., his conditions of service are governed by the rules framed under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India or a statute and would otherwise be governed by Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India; (2) where the conditions of service are governed by statute or statutory Regulation and in the event mandatory provisions thereof have been breached; (3) when the service of the employee is otherwise protected by a statute; and (4) where a right is claimed under the Industrial Disputes Act or sister laws, termination of service having been effected in breach of the provisions thereof. 39. The appellant-Corporation is bound to comply with the mandatory provisions of the statute or the regulations framed under it. A subordinate legislation when validly framed becomes a part of the Act. It is also bound to follow the principles of natural justice. In the event it is found that the action on the part of the State is violative of the constitutional provisions or the mandatory requirements of a statute or statutory rules, the civil court would have the jurisdiction to direct reinstatement with full back wages." 9. It is also bound to follow the principles of natural justice. In the event it is found that the action on the part of the State is violative of the constitutional provisions or the mandatory requirements of a statute or statutory rules, the civil court would have the jurisdiction to direct reinstatement with full back wages." 9. Indisputably, the suit was filed seeking a decree of declaration as to the order of punishment dated 19.02.1983 and the appellate order dated 03.01.1984 being nullity having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice; therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the Civil Court had jurisdiction. Even otherwise also, while deciding the issue no.3, the learned trial Court has held that this issue was already decided vide order dated 24.08.1987 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The order-sheet dated 24.08.1987 records that since, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court vide order dated 03.04.1987 held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter, a fact admitted by the learned counsel for the defendants, issue no.3 is decided in terms that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter. The learned counsel for the defendants did not dispute that the aforesaid finding attained finality. The learned trial Court has, vide judgement dated 25.03.1989, while deciding the issue no.1 as to validity of the order dated 19.02.1983, recorded a categorical finding appreciating the evidence on record that enquiry against the plaintiff was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was held that despite request by the plaintiff, the documents pertaining to departmental enquiry were not furnished to him. It was further held that neither the statements of the departmental witnesses were recorded in his presence nor, he was given an opportunity to cross examine them nor, he was given an opportunity to lead his evidence. As a matter of fact, no evidence was led by the defendants to show that the plaintiff was given an opportunity to defend himself during the course of departmental enquiry or the principles of natural justice were followed before terminating his services vide order dated 19.02.1983. These findings have been affirmed by the learned appellate Court re-appreciating the evidence on record. Learned counsel for the defendants could not demonstrate that these concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned Courts suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity. 10. These findings have been affirmed by the learned appellate Court re-appreciating the evidence on record. Learned counsel for the defendants could not demonstrate that these concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned Courts suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity. 10. Contention of the learned counsel for the defendants with regard to the plaintiff being on probation, is wholly misconceived and misplaced. Neither any such plea was taken in the written statement nor, any evidence was led before the learned trial Court to show that the plaintiff was appointed on probation. Even otherwise also, it is not a case of termination simplicitor; but, services of the plaintiff were terminated after conducting the departmental enquiry. 11. In view of the aforesaid findings, the substantial question of law framed by this Court is answered in affirmative. Since, no other substantial question of law is involved in the instant second appeal, the same is dismissed being devoid of merit.