RAM SEWAK KASHYAP Vs. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court was appointed as a Peon in Nagar Palika Parishad, Kichha, Udham Singh Nagar. His services were terminated by an oral order dated 30.03.1991. Against his termination order, the petitioner filed a claim petition before the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow with regard to the setting aside the oral order of termination and also made a prayer that his services be regularised. The said claim petition was dismissed by the State Public Services Tribunal on 21.10.1996 as the State Public Services Tribunal did not find any illegality in the impugned order of his termination. Thereafter, the petitioner raised a reference under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication vide order dated 18.06.1998. The Labour Court after considering the material on record came to the conclusion that the question relating to the termination of the petitioner has already been adjudicated by the State Public Services Tribunal and, therefore, the same issue cannot be adjudicated afresh under the provisionsof the Industrial Disputes Act and consequently declined to grant any relief to the petitioner. Subsequently, a writ petition being WPMS No.305 of 2004 was filed by the petitioner before this Court which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 30.06.2010. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as undersaving heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, this Court is of the opinion that if two forums are provided to a person for the redressal of his grievance, the choice is that of the person concerned, but, having approached a particular forum and the matter has been adjudicated on merits, it is no longer open to the said person to approach another forum for the redressal of the same grievance. The principle of constructive res judicata will be squarely applicable."

(2.) Not satisfied, the petitioner thereafter raked up the matter once again, and moved an application before the Deputy Labour Commissioner quite ingeniously saying that the date of his termination is not 30.03.1991 but 19.03.1991, and therefore, the reference for adjudication under Sec. 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was defective. The application moved by the petitioner was rejected by the Deputy Labour Commissioner vide order dated 25.09.2013. Against this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court.

(3.) At the hands of the petitioner there has been nothing less but an abuse of the process of Court as not only this case is barred by time but the matter has already been decided by the State Public Services Tribunal, which is needlessly being raked up by the petitioner over and over again by raising an industrial dispute. Finally, when the matter was closed by a learned Single Judge by dismissing the earlier writ petition of the petitioner, there was absolutely no occasion for the petitioner to have filed the present writ petition before this Court.