- (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed for quashing the award dated 04.07.2013 (Annexure P -1) whereby the Labour Court, Hisar has held that the claim was barred by the principle of res judicata, since the petitioner had opted to challenge his termination dated 01.03.2001 by filing the civil suit on 02.01.2004, which was dismissed on 14.03.2008 and the relief of reinstatement was denied. The petitioner thereafter was unsuccessful before the appellate Court on 19.04.2011. For the reasons best known to the petitioner, he preferred not to file second appeal before this Court and raised industrial dispute on 05.08.2011 after more than 10 years of his termination, which was on 01.03.2001. The Government in its wisdom referred the matter to the Labour Court, which has now decided the issue against the petitioner on the ground that the claim was barred by res judicata. The Labour Court distinguished the judgments which the petitioner had relied upon and placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Premier Automobiles Limited vs. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke and others, 1976 1 SCC 496, to hold that the principle of election will govern and once the Civil Suit had been filed, the claim was barred by principle of res judicata.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently placed reliance upon the judgment of The Rajasthan State RTC vs. Krishna Kant, 1995 5 SCC 75, which was also referred by the Labour Court and distinguished by holding as under: - " In Krishan Kant's case, the respondents were employees of the appellant -corporation viz., Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. Pursuant to disciplinary enquries held against them on charges of misconduct, their services were terminated. They filed civil suits for a declaration that the order terminating their services was illegal and invalid and for a further declaration that they must be deemed to have continued and were still continuing in the services of the corporation with all consequential benefits. The corporation resisted the suit on the ground inter alia that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits. The Ld. trial court decreed the suits as prayed for. Appeals as also second appeals preferred by the corporation were dismissed by the Ld. District Judge and the Hon'ble High Court. The corporation took the matter to the Hon'ble Apex Court by ways of appeals which were allowed holding that the suits filed by the respondents were not maintainable before the civil court as the dispute between the parties was an 'industrial dispute' which could be decided only by the forums creates by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947."
(3.) THIS Court is of the opinion that this answer to the question has been settled beyond any shadow of doubt by the Full Bench of this Court in Sukhi Ram vs. State of Haryana,1982 1 SLR 663, wherein it was 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. The following question was formulated by the Full Bench in Sukhi Ram's case : - "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." The conclusion arrived was that the Civil Court would have jurisdiction to entertain a suit in connection with industrial dispute arising out of the right or liability under the general or the common law, if no steps have been taken earlier to resort to the other remedy. However, it was specifically held that the workman must elect either remedy and he could not have both. The relevant observations read as under: - "10. Coming now to the second distinct category where the right or obligation giving rise to the industrial dispute springs from a source other than the Act that is, under the general law (including therein any other statutes) then under principle, (2) the workman is expressly given two alternatives remedies. In such a case, it is in his discretion to either make resort to the ordinary jurisdiction of the civil Courts or to seek the remedies under the Act. However, he must distinctly elect his remedy. It is now authoritatively settled that he cannot have both. He is to choose one or the other.";