Jagbir vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the workman challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 26.2.1999, copy annexure P/4, passed by respondent No. 1, vide which the Labour Court declined the reference and held that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

As per the case of the petitioner, he was appointed on daily wages on 2.2.1989 and removed from service on 3.6.1990. He filed a Civil Suit No. 12.6.1990 challenging the order of removal. However, on 7.10.1993, he withdrew the suit and issued a demand notice on 11.10.1993. In pursuance to the said demand notice. the matter was referred to the Labour Court.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The first point, which has been decided against the petitioner is regarding delay. It has been observed that by the Labour Court that the demand notice should have been issued within three years.

We do not agree with the finding of the Labour Court that three years time has been prescribed for filing of the demand notice. We are supported in our view by the case of Ajaib Singh Vs. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum-Processing Service Society Limited and Another, .

The Labour Court also held that the workman had two remedies open (i) under the General Civil Law i.e. before the Civil Court, and (ii) under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is further observed that the petitioner had availed of the first remedy before the competent authority by filing civil suit and got it dismissed as withdrawn without seeking permission to file reference before the Labour Court and has therefore, lost his right to get his remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

Learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the suit was just dismissed as withdrawn and no permission was sought for filing a Civil suit or resorting to any other remedy for the same cause of action. He has also argued that Civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit.

In view of the law laid down on this point, it cannot be said that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the question in dispute. Reliance can be placed on the case of Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, . It has been held in that case that Civil court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit in the case where services of the bus Conductor of Haryana Roadways were terminated. It has been observed in para No. A of the Judgment as under :-

"On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge held in disagreement with the Trial Court and, in our opinion, rightly that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit."

In the case of The Premier Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay and Others, , the principles regarding the jurisdiction are laid down as under :-

"(1) If the dispute is not an industrial dispute, nor does it relate to enforcement of any other right under the Act the remedy lies only in the civil court.

(2) If the dispute is an industrial dispute arising out of a right or liability under the general or common law and not under the Act, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is alternative, leaving it to the election of the suitor concerned to choose his remedy for the relief which is competent to be granted in a particular remedy.

(3) If the industrial dispute relates to the enforcement of a right or an obligation created under the Act, then the only remedy available to the suitor is to get an adjudication under the Act.

(4) If the right which is sought to be enforced is a right created under the Act such as Chapter VA then the remedy for its enforcement is either Section 33C or the raising of an industrial dispute, as the case may be."

In the case of Sukhi Ram v. State of Haryana, reported in 1982(1) SLR 663 , the Full Bench of this Court relied on the case of Premier Automobiles (supra). In that case, the question (as reframed) posed before the Full Bench was as under :-

"Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed by a workman in connection with an industrial dispute, if no steps had been earlier taken by him to have the same referred u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, to a Labour Court or the Tribunal."

The Full Bench answered the question as follows:-

"In the light of aforesaid discussion, we would render the answer to the question as reframed (in paragraph 2 above) in the affirmative. It is held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit by a workman in connection with an industrial dispute arising out of the right or liability under the general or the common law (and not under the Act), if no steps had been earlier taken by him to resort to the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act."

In view of the above reasons, in the present case, it cannot be said that the suit was barred by the provisions of the Act. The suit being not barred and having been withdrawn without permission to file a fresh suit, debars filing of the suit on the same cause of action. Therefore, the right to challenge, which was available to the person, before the withdrawing the suit, has to be treated as given up. When this is position, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the reference.

As the remedy, the petitioner seeking has now become barred, he is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him.

As a result, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

Petition dismissed.