PALE RAM Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present petition is to the award dated 18.7.2011 (Annexure P-9) whereby reference has been declined.

(2.) The admitted facts are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Pharmacist/Dispenser with effect from 14.10.1992 and his services were dispensed with on 28.10.1992 and, therefore, he never completed the mandatory service of 240 days. The petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No.14362 of 1992 challenging his termination which was dismissed as withdrawn on 29.3.1995 with liberty to peruse his alternative remedy. Thereafter, he filed Civil Suit No.727/1 of 8.3.1996 and sought relief of declaration and mandatory injunction. He was unsuccessful and the said suit was dismissed on 24.2.2001. Then the demand was raised on 10.4.2001 under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the matter was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court has now declined the reference on the ground that no right of workman had been infringed and once the petitioner had not completed the mandatory period of 240 days, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court itself could not been be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Another interesting aspect of the matter is that the petitioner had elected his remedy by way of filing the Civil Court and taken a chance. After having been unsuccessful, he opted to avail his remedy under the Act which cannot be permitted. The Full Bench of this Court in Sukhi Ram vs. State of Haryana, 1982 1 SLR 663has settled the legal proposition 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.

(3.) The Full Bench in Sukhi Ram's case formulated the following legal question after taking into consideration the binding precedent of The Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. Kimlakar Shantaram Kakde and others, 1975 AIR(SC) 2238:-