Civil Writ Petition No. 15594 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 15594 of 2011 Date of decision:-25.08.2011 Raghbir Singh ...Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. D.D. Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. RITU BAHRI J. Challenge is to the Award dated 23.7.2009 whereby the reference has been declined and the order of termination has been upheld. Petitioner was appointed as Conductor with the respondents on 09.8.1974 at a salary of Rs.2100/- per month. His services were terminated on 06.12.1988. He has raised a demand notice and the dispute was referred by the Additional Labour Commissioner on 23.8.2001. Prior to raising the demand notice petitioner had filed a civil suit at Bhatinda challenging his termination. This suit was dismissed by the Civil Court on 12.9.1991 (Ex.M/A). The appeal preferred by the workman was also dismissed by the Appellate Court on 3.6.1993 (Ex.M/B). Before the Labour Court, the Management took the plea of limitation that petitioner has challenged the termination order dated 06.12.1988 by filing claim statement in 2001. Once the workman has chosen the remedy under the civil law and his statement has entered in dismissing, he cannot re- agitate the same before the Labour Court. On the ground of limitation the Labour Court decided in favour of the workman that there is no scope of Civil Writ Petition No. 15594 of 2011 -2- limitation prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act. As far as second objection is concerned, despite the fact that the civil suit has been dismissed, the Labour Court has examined the order of termination on merit and came to the conclusion that the termination order was passed after holding the inquiry giving full opportunities to the workman. Mr. D.D. Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner has argued that the workman was proceeded ex-parte on 10.5.1988 and the workman was not supplied the inquiry report. The workman was denied proper opportunity to get the assistance of co-worker. On the other hand, after going through the record, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the workman was given full opportunity during the proceedings of the dispute. The workman has cross-examined the witnesses of the prosecution. The workman had chosen not to appear at the defence stage, hence, he was proceeded ex-parte on 10.5.1988. The order of termination therefore suffers from no infirmity. As far as the interference of this Court to examine this issue concerned is limited. In the facts of the present case the petitioner has exhausted the remedy of civil suit and the Labour Court has also examined the procedure adopted for terminating the services and has come to the conclusion that the departmental proceedings were fair. No ground is made out to interfere in the punishment awarded vide Award dated 23.7.2009 in view of the judgment Chief Engineer, Hydel Project and others versus Ravinder Nath and others 2008(2) SCT 412. This writ petition is dismissed. August 25, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE