HAKAM SINGH Vs. LABOUR COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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: -