HIRA MILLS LTD Vs. MUKUND SONUBHAIYA PANDIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE circumstances in which this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing a decision of the industrial court is filed are that respondent 1, Mukund, was employed as a permanent clerk in the petitioner-mills. The management held an enquiry against him on the charge of disobedience of an order of the management directing him to work in the provident fund section on 9,11 and 12 September 1962. As a result of the enquiry, Mukund's services were terminated with effect from 3 March 1963 after giving him one month's notice-pay. On 5 March 1963, Mukund received from the petitioner-mills the salary amount due to him as well as the amount of gratuity and passed a receipt in favour of the petitioner in the following words :- Received the sum of Rs. Rs. 2,360. 66 (in words, two thousand, three hundred and sixty rupees and sixty-six naye paise only ). Received in full and final payment of all my claims.

(2.) ON 24 March 1963, Mukund delivered to the petitioner a letter of approach as required by the proviso to Section 31 (3) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960, questioning the validity of his discharge from service, and claiming reinstatement with back-wages. The petitioner did not accept the demand of the said respondent. Thereupon he filed an application before the labour court to claim reinstatement with back-wages. According to the applicant, respondent 1 also received the amount of provident fund due to him after the filing of the application that he did before the labour court. The labour court held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management was illegal and accordingly quashed the order of discharge directing reinstatement in service of Mukund and payment to him of 50 per cent of back-wages. The petitioner then preferred a revision petition before the industrial court which was dismissed. The petitioner now seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders of the industrial court and the labour court,

(3.) THE only contention, which was advanced on behalf of the petitioner before the industrial court and which has been repeated before us, is that respondent 1 having voluntarily accepted the payment of notice-pay, gratuity and provident fund, was estopped from challenging the order of termination. It was said that he was entitled to get these amounts only on the footing that his services had been validly terminated. In support of this contention,sri Chapheker, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed strong reliance on the observations of the Supreme Court in Nagubai v. B. Shama Rao in regard to the decision in Verschures Creameries, Ltd. v. Hull and Netherlands Steamship Company, Ltd. (1921) 2 K. B. 6d8, on the doctrine of election. The Supreme Court said; There, the facts were that an agent delivered goods to the customer contrary to the instructions of the principal, who thereafter filed a suit against the purchaser for price of goods and obtained a decree. Not having obtained satisfaction, the principal next filed a suit against the agent for damages on the ground of negligence and breach of duty. It was held that such an action was barred. The ground of the decision is that when on the same facts a person has the right to claim one of two reliefs and with full knowledge he elects to claim one and obtains it, it is not open to him thereafter to go back on his election and claim the alternative relief. The principle was thus stated by Bankes, L. J. : Having elected to treat the delivery to him as pa authorized delivery they cannot treat the same act as a misdelivery. To do so would be to approbate and reprobate the same act.