IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 7219 of 2005 Date of decision: 2nd May, 2008 Baldev Singh … Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General Punjab for the State. Mr. I.S.Saggu, Advocate for respondent No.5. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Present writ petition has been filed by Baldev Singh, who during the pendency of the writ petition died and vide CM No. 2272 of 2008, his wife Narinder Kaur and daughter Savita Chawla were impleaded as his legal representatives. In the present writ petition, prayer has been made that impugned award dated 30.11.2004 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Labour Court, Jalandhar, which was answered in favour of the respondent-management, be quashed. Civil Writ Petition No. 7219 of 2005 Petitioner Baldev Singh was aggrieved against the termination of his services and had raised the industrial dispute. Under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, following reference was made: “Whether termination of services of Sh.Baldev Singh workman is justified and in order? If not, to what relief is he entitled to?” In the statement of claim, workman had stated that he joined the services of respondent No.5-management on 17th November, 1978 as Secretary and was getting Rs.1000/- per month and due to trade union activities, his services were terminated without any notice on 18th May, 1985. No chargesheet was served, neither any inquiry was held nor any compensation was paid. It is further stated that Baldev Singh workman was falsely implicated in a criminal case under Section 408/ 460 IPC, in which he was convicted and sentenced by the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Kapurthala to two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo six months. But in appeal, he was acquitted. The learned Labour Court denied the relief of reinstatement and the back wages on the ground that workman had filed a civil suit for declaration, wherein he had challenged his suspension and dismissal on 18th May, 1985 along with consequential relief of pay, allowances and promotion etc. and suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala on 02.09.1998 and no appeal was filed against the judgment and decree of the Civil Court. It was held that the workman instead of filing appeal, sent a demand notice on 27.11.1998 and raised industrial dispute and since he has availed the remedy by way of filing civil suit, Labour Court is barred from adjudicating his claim as same is barred by the principle of res-judicata. The learned 2 Civil Writ Petition No. 7219 of 2005 counsel for the workman has placed on record judgment and decree of the civil suit as Annexure P-1, due to which award has been declined. A perusal of the Civil Court judgment (Annexure P-1) will show that Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kapurthala relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. J. Tiwari v. Smt. Jawala Devi Vidya Mandir and others, 1979 (1) SLR 614, wherein it was held that plaintiff being an employee of private body, is not entitled to any such declaration and civil Court held as under: “11. The principles laid-down in the ruling supra is fully applicable. The plaintiff through this suit has challenged his removal from service of the defendant society and has sought reinstatement. So in view of the ruling supra, the plaintiff cannot claim reinstatement and civil court could not order reinstatement of the plaintiff who is only entitled to damages.” Since learned Civil Court had held that the relief claimed could not be granted by the Civil Court and workman should get his dispute referred to the Labour Court, the learned Labour Court committed a grave error by declining the prayer of the workman on the ground that he has availed the remedy of the Civil Court. It was incumbent upon the learned Labour Court to peruse the judgment of Civil Court (Annexure P- 1) in its entirety. The Civil Court had relegated the workman to the Labour Court and Labour Court without deciding the issues on merit, has held that since he has availed the remedy of approaching the Civil Court and has failed in Civil Court, therefore principles of res-judicata bar the Labour Court from adjudicating upon the claim. The view taken by the Labour Court in the award (Annexure P-5) cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, we quash the impugned award 3 Civil Writ Petition No. 7219 of 2005 (Annexure P-5) and dispose of this writ petition by remanding the matter back to the learned Labour Court to decide the reference on merits after taking into consideration the evidence led by the workman and the management. Since the workman has been agitating since long, we direct that the learned Labour Court will decide the matter within six months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE [ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA] JUDGE May 2, 2008 rps 4