RATTAN CHAND Vs. PUNJAB STATE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff was employed as Bus Conductor in Punjab Roadways at Batala. His services were terminated by he General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Batala, vide order dated 26th March, 1979. He filed suit for a declaration to the effect that the order of termination of his services was illegal, null and void.

(2.) The suit was contested, Inter alia on the ground that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This objection prevailed with the trial Court. Consequently the plaint of the suit was directed to be returned to the plaintiff for proper presentation. The said order was maintained in appeal by the learned District Judge. Dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiff has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) The matter now stands concluded by the Full Bench Judgment of this court reported in Sukhi Ram v. State of Haryana,1982 PunLR 717, wherein it was held that if the right of liability flows from the Industrial Disputes Act itself then the remedy therefore would also lie within the procedural provisions of the same statute alone. Where the right or obligation giving rise to the industrial dispute springs from a source other than the Act, that in under the general law, then the workman is expressly given two alternative remedies. In such a case, it is in his discretion to either make resort to the ordinary jurisdiction of the civil courts or to seek the remedies under the Act. However, he must distinctly select his remedy. Of course, he cannot have both. He is to choose one or the other. The earlier view reported in Banarsi Dass v. State of Haryana, 1980 1 SLR 355, was held not to lay down the law correctly. In this view of the matter, the petition succeeds, the impugned order is set aside and the case is sent back to the trial Court for decision on merits in accordance with law. The parties have been directed to appear in the trial Court on 16th August, 1985.