SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(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: -

(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 : -