C.W.P. No.10646 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.10646 of 2003 Date of Decision: 13.11.2009 Mohinder Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Ramesh Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G., Haryan for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 5. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition challenges the rejection of reference sought before the Government, which while disposing of the plea of the workman had stated cryptically that the reference was not possible since the workman had availed of remedy before a Civil Court where he failed. The suit admittedly had been filed by the petitioner as a plaintiff in Civil Suit No.375 of 1998 instituted before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula. The point urged before the Civil Court was whether the termination effected on 14.07.1998 by the Principal of the DAV School was illegal, null and void and whether the plaintiff was entitled to the consequential benefits. He also applied for the relief of mandatory injunction. C.W.P. No.10646 of 2003 -2- Although the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to grant the relief was taken by the management in the written statement and a specific issue had also been framed, admittedly no argument was urged relating to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and specifically recorded so, by the Court. The issue, therefore, came to be decided on the legality of the termination of services. The Civil Court on consideration of the points urged on behalf of the respective parties found that the termination was not bad in the manner urged by the plaintiff, he was found not entitled to the relief sought for. In such a situation, the decision between the parties had become final and there was no further scope for a party to re-agitate the issue by seeking for a reference. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the workman before me refers to an observation made in the Civil Court judgment where it was held that the contract of personnel service cannot be specifically enforced and the remedy of a person is only to claim damages. These observations, according to him, meant that the Civil Court was treating itself as not competent to grant relief sought for by him. The plaintiff, who opts for a remedy and then urges on the legality of his termination, is deemed to have elected to a remedy, which is competent. It is one thing to state that the Civil Court completely lacked jurisdiction, in which the assumption of jurisdiction and judgment would be non est and void. It is quite another that the Court finds it has jurisdiction but holds that the plaintiff is competent to obtain the relief. Where the C.W.P. No.10646 of 2003 -3- issue of jurisdiction was never taken, although taken but not urged by the defendant and the Civil Court was, therefore, deciding only on the legality of termination of services, the plaintiff cannot reopen the issue by treating the dispute as falling within the industrial realm of adjudication before the Labour Court. The learned counsel refers to several decisions which highlight the issue with reference to whether a judgment of a Civil Court will constitute re judicata if the issue to be decided fell within the four corners of "dispute" before the Labour Court only. Cases where Courts have held that they did not have jurisdiction to decide industrial disputes are instances where parties are indeed deflected to obtain adjudication before the machineries provides under Industrial Disputes Act. Where on the merits of the termination, there is already an adjudication before a Civil Court and it had also become final, the plaintiff, who failed to have the adjudication in his favour relating to his termination of service before the Civil Court is estopped from urging that the decision of the Civil Court will not bind him. The judgment of the Civil Court is not to be treated to be as non est; it is verily an adjudication that will bind. The reference sought for was untenable and the decision of the Government not to make the reference was justified. 3. The writ petition is devoid of merit and dismissed as such. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 13, 2009 C.W.P. No.10646 of 2003 -4- Pankaj*