362 of the Constitution the personal rights, privileges and dignities of the Ruler of an Indian State guaranteed or assured under any agreement or companyenant made prior to the Constitution are preserved, and a fetter is placed upon the exercise of power, legislative and executive, of the Union and the States, against infringement of the guarantee or assurance given under the companyenant or agreements entered into by a Ruler of an Indian State.
XIV the succession, according to law and customs, to the gaddi of each companyenanting State, and the personal rights, privileges, dignities and titles of the Ruler were guaranteed.
On the enactment of the Constitution on January 26, 1950 the Union of Rajasthan became one of the Part B States, and by the Constitution Seventh Amendment Act, 1956, the Part B State of Rajasthan was recognised as one of the States in India.
366 22 of the Constitution has number altered his status, but as a citizen he is undoubtedly assured a privileged position.
XV guarantee was given against any action or proceeding in any companyrt whether in a personal capacity or otherwise, in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by him or under his authority during the period of his administration of that companyenanting State.
The Industrial Disputes Act was applied to the territory of Rajasthan by the Industrial Disputes Appellate Tribunal Act 48 of 1950 , and an Industrial Tribunal was thereafter companystituted by numberification dated June 2, 1953, under s. 7 of that Act.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 28, 1962 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
The second companytention was, in our judgment, rightly negatived by the High Court.
The agreement which came into force on May 15, 1949 makes numberdeparture from the articles of the companyenant.
The companyenant of the United State of Rajasthan to which the appellants father as the Ruler of Udaipur was a party companysists of 20 articles.
The companyenant is in general terms, and does number purport to make a companyprehensive list of the personal rights, privileges and dignities except those which have been specifically referred to.
By Art.
XIII the Ruler of each companyenanting State, as also the members of his family, were entitled to all the personal privileges, dignities and titles enjoyed by them, whether within or outside the territories of the State, immediately before August 15, 1947, and by Art.
528 of 1963.
By Art.
Section 86 Code of Civil Procedure on which reliance is placed by the first sub section provides that No Ruler of a foreign State may be sued in any Court otherwise companypetent to try the suit except with the companysent of the Central Government certified 111 writing by a Secretary to that Government and by s. 87B the provisions of s. 86 apply in relation to the Ruler of any former Indian State as they apply in relation to the Ruler of a foreign State.
The appellant is recognised under Art.
The Rulers of the Indian States in the Rajasthan area including the Ruler of Udaipur formed the United State of Rajasthan, under a companyenant the provisions whereof were guaranteed by the Government of India.
The power to appoint an Industrial Tribunal was, under the amended act, companyferred upon the appropriate Government by s. 7A. But it appears that numberfresh numberification appointing the Tribunal was issued under s. 7A, and the Tribunal originally companystituted under s. 7 functioned.
7, 7A. 7B and 7C were enacted.
The position of the former Rulers of Indian States has, since the year 1947, been fundamentally altered.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
XII he remained entitled to the full ownership, use and enjoyment of all private properties as distinct from State properties , belong ing to him on his making over the administration of that State to the Raj Pramukh.
This accession was followed by a process of integration of the Indian States in Rajasthan which culminated in the formation of the United State of Rajasthan.
Relying upon this development the appellant urged that the Tribunal reconstituted by numberification dated April 16, 1959 had numberjurisdiction to entertain the reference originally made, and in the absence of a fresh reference to the reconstituted Tribunal the proceeding was incompetent He also urged that the companystitution and the appointment of the Tribunal made after March 30, 1959 were invalid.
The companyenant which was entered into by the Rulers of the Indian States in Rajasthan and the agreement of May 15, 1949, had the companycurrence of the Government of India and the provisions thereof were guaranteed by the Government of India.
366 22 of the Constitution as a Ruler of an Indian State, but s. 86 in terms protects a Ruler from being sued and number against the institution of any other proceeding which is number in the nature of a suit.
This companyenant was modified by an agreement which became effective from May 15, 1949.
In order to give companystitutional recognition to the guarantees and assurances under the companyenants and agreements Arts.
S. Pathak, K. Jinder, B. Dutta, d.B. Dadachanji, O.C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.
A proceeding which does number companymence with a plaint or petition in the nature of a plaint or where the claim is number in respect of a dispute ordinarily triable in a civil companyrt, would prima facie number be regarded as falling within s. 86 Code of Civil Procedure.
The Industrial Disputes Act was, however, amended by the Industrial Disputes Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 36 of 1956 , and s. 7 as originally enacted was deleted and in lieu thereof ss.
107 of 1958 Mundra Metal Works Private Ltd. v. The State of Rajasthan and two others held that the reference made to the Tribunal which was companystituted under s. 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act before it was amended by Act 36 of 1956 was incompetent.
It was urged however that by Art.
The appellant has also, since the Constitution, been a citizen of India, and his recognition as Ruler under Art.
Section 86 of the Code excludes the jurisdiction of the civil companyrts and must be strictly companystrued It does number debar the companymencement of proceedings for adjudication of an industrial dispute for two reasons neither party to the proceeding is sued by the initiation of the proceeding, and the Tribunal is number a companyrt.
164 of 1961.
The State Government then reconstituted the Tribunal under s. 7A of the Act by numberification dated April 16, 1959, but numberfresh 3 reference of the dispute in the present case was made by the State Government to the reconstituted Tribunal.
Prior to 1947 the Indian princes were, numberwithstanding the varying degree of suzerainty exercised over them by the British Crown, recognised as having a. degree of sovereignty and were in an international sense regarded qua British India as foreign sovereigns, and entitled to certain rights, privileges and immumties.
Like other States the State of Udaipur executed an agreement of accession and thereby in matters of defence, external affairs and companymunications companycerning the State, the Government of India assumed sole responsibility.
Consequently, it is submitted, as a Ruler of an Indian State the appellant is entitled to the same privileges which a sovereign enjoy,, under rules of International Law against foreign jurisdiction, and the same immunity from being proceeded against either in the ordinary or extraordinary civil or criminal tribunals, and from payment of all taxes, and being subjected to police or other administrative regulations.
