Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) THE challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 7.3.2006 (Annexure P/4) whereby reference has been rejected by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Rajpura on account of the fact that the Civil Court has already decided the issue against the petitioner which was upheld till this Court. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had wrongly approached the Civil Court and the jurisdiction would lie with the Labour Court and therefore, the order dated 7.3.2006 is not sustainable and the dispute should be referred to the Labour Court.
(2.) AFTER hearing the counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in this submission. Admittedly the Civil Suit No. 329T of 28.11.1998 was filed challenging the termination order dated 3.9.1998. Initially the petitioner was successful and the suit was decreed in his favour on 19.11.2001 (Annexure P/1). However, in appeal on 3.9.1998, the Appellate Court reversed the said judgment. The petitioner approached this Court by way of Regular Second Appeal No. 2834 of 2002 which was dismissed on 21.9.2004 (Annexure P/2) after holding that the petitioner was only employed as a contractual employee and there was some interpolation in the cash memo on account of which his services were dispensed with. The petitioner chose not to further agitate the issue and the findings became final. However, under Section 2 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") an industrial dispute was sought to be raised which has now been rejected vide impugned order dated 7.2.2006. It is settled principle of law that once the petitioner has elected his remedy and got a decision against him, he cannot choose another remedy and he cannot be permitted to do forum shopping. A Full Bench of this Court in Sukhi Ram v. State of Haryana, : (1982) 84 P.L.R. 717 (F.B.) has held that it is the discretion of the workman to resort to one of the remedies and he has option to seek his remedies under the Act or to elect his remedy under the common law and he cannot choose both.
(3.) THE Full Bench in Sukhi Ram's case (supra) formulated the following legal question after taking into consideration the binding precedent of The Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kimlakar Shantaram Kakde and others, : A.I.R. 1975 Supreme Court 2238: - "Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed by a workman in connection with an industrial dispute if no steps had been earlier taken by him to have the same referred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act to a Labour Court or the Tribunal.";