THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.29019 of 2009 and 24868 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Both the writ petitions are similar in all respects. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. The petitioners are said to have been engaged as N.M.Rs. between 1982 and 1985 by the then Tirupathi Municipality, which, later became Tirupathi Municipal Corporation, respondent No.2 herein. Complaining that their services were terminated on various dates between 1984 and 1987, they filed R.P.Nos.21689 to 21698 of 1989 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). An interim order was passed by the Tribunal on 11.08.1989 directing that the case of the petitioners shall be considered for appointment on N.M.R. basis in accordance with the existing Rules and Regulations. In compliance with the interim order, the petitioners were reinstated into service on 06.09.1989 as per the resolution, dated 31.08.1989. Thereafter, R.Ps. were disposed of on 29.09.1994, taking on record, the fact that the petitioners were appointed as N.M.Rs. and directing that their cases be considered for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. The petitioners did not possess the requisite length of service, stipulated under G.O.Ms.No.212 for regularization. They felt that in case the period between the date of their termination and the date of fresh appointment in compliance of the interim orders passed by the Tribunal is added, they would stand to the benefit of regularization. It is in this background that they presented industrial disputes under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Labour Court, Anantapur. The Labour Court raised an objection as to the maintainability of the Industrial Disputes and the applicability of Section 2-A (2) of the Act to the cases of the petitioners. Hence, these two writ petitions. In compliance with the interim order passed in W.P.No.29019 of 2009, the I.D. filed by the petitioners therein was numbered. The I.D. filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.24868 of 2010, was returned as not maintainable on the ground that no such interim order was passed in their case. The petitioners contend that though they came to be reinstated into service on the basis of an interim order passed by the Tribunal, the legality of the termination of their services in contravention of Section 25-F of the Act remains untouched and the dispute can certainly be raised under Section 2-A (2) of the Act. Sri P.Raghavender Reddy and Sri B.Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submit that mere fact that their clients availed the remedy before the Tribunal cannot defeat their rights under Section 2-A (2) of the Act vis-à-vis the orders of oral termination. They contend that a workman has various options to seek redressal against the illegal termination and as long as the validity of the termination was not adjudicated in any forum, the remedy under Section 2-A (2) of the Act remains intact, for them. The learned Government Pleader for Labour and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 submit that the petitioners have approached the Tribunal against the very orders of termination and once they got the relief in a particular form, it is not open to them to take recourse to Section 2-A (2) of the Act. The petitioners were not appointed through any specific written order. Their engagement is said to have been oral and on daily wages. Complaining that their services were abruptly terminated, the petitioners approached the Tribunal. An interim order as indicated in the preceding paragraph was passed and the petitioners were engaged as N.M.Rs. Thereafter, R.Ps. were disposed of on 29.09.1994, taking on record, the facts that the petitioners were appointed as N.M.Rs., the Tribunal directed that their cases for regularization be considered in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994.The petitioners felt satisfied with that relief and remained quiet for the past one and half decades. In case they felt that their very termination was illegal, they ought to have pressed for a finding on that. Further in case the adjudication undertaken by the Tribunal was not to their satisfaction, they ought to have pursued further remedies. They have permitted the order of the Tribunal to become final. The petitioners felt that they cannot be extended the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, unless they have to their credit, five years of service before the notified date. It is not as if this necessity has arisen at a later point of time. The G.O. was very much in force when the R.Ps. were disposed of by the Tribunal. In the recent past, the petitioners thought it proper to approach the Labour Court to assail the oral orders of termination. The Labour Court refused to entertain the disputes on the ground that Section 2-A (2) of the Act does not get attracted, once a workman is in service. Instances are not lacking where this Court held that an I.D. under Section 2-A (2) of the Act can be maintained even where a workman is reinstated into service, but punishment of a different form is imposed in the departmental remedies of appeal or review. Those, however, are cases where the employee is terminated as a consequence of disciplinary proceedings. The dispute to be raised on the complaint of violation of Section 25-F of the Act stands on a different footing. It is only against an order of retrenchment. No element of punishment exists. The only relief that can be granted in matters of that nature is the reinstatement of the employee. Once the reinstatement is ordered, nothing survives. In the instant case, though in a different manner, the petitioners got reinstated and there was no scope for them to complain violation of Section 25-F of the Act. That in fact, was never their case before the Tribunal also. Their grievance was about the failure to issue notice in the ordinary parlance and not referable to Section 25-F of the Act. If that were to be so, the Tribunal would have required the petitioners to approach the Labour Court. It is possible to argue that a workman can choose any forum of his choice, to seek redressal. For instance, a workman in an establishment, which is covered by the provisions of the A.P. shops and Establishments Act, can avail the remedy before a forum under that enactment or he can move the Labour Court under the provisions of the Act. If a workman is engaged by a forum to which the Administrative Tribunals Act applies, an additional remedy before the Tribunal would be available to him. In yet other category of cases, he may approach the High Court directly. However, Once a workman chooses a particular forum, he has to make a comprehensive claim and seek adjudication thereof. He cannot split the claim and seek redressal of part of it before one forum and rest, before another. In case the relief granted to the petitioners by the Tribunal was not exhaustive, they ought to have availed the remedy vis-à-vis the orders passed in the R.Ps. Having reaped the benefit of the order passed by the Tribunal and remained silent for about one and half decades, the petitioners cannot approach the Labour Court. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt. 07.10.2010. Note: L.R. copy to be marked. kdl