IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 11988 of 2006. Date of Decision : January 30, 2009. Balwinder Singh .... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur, and others. ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate, for the respondents No. 2 and 3. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 07.10.2005 (Annexure-P-7), vide which the Labour Court has held that it would not have the jurisdiction to entertain the reference. Counsel for the petitioner contends that wrong forum has been chosen by the workman for which he should not be penalised as he was not aware of the statutory position in this regard. As such he would avail the remedy of Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Society Service Rules, 1997, which is applicable to the service of workman. He submits that liberty be granted to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority as per Rule 15 of the said Rules. C.W.P. No. 11988 of 2006. Counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 has asserted that the award passed by the Labour Court is in accordance with law in the light of Section 55 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. He states that there is a remedy of appeal under Rule 15 of the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Society Service Rules, 1997, which would cover the punishment which has been awarded to the petitioner. He further states that the petitioner has not availed the remedy of appeal, and therefore, this petition would not be maintainable and he be relegated to avail the statutory alternative remedy as per rules. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions made by the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, the Rules abovementioned were not in force and the same came into force during the pendency of the proceedings and he was not aware of the Rules at the time when the order of termination was passed, and therefore, he could not avail an alternative remedy. As per his advice, he had approached the Labour Court for redressal of his grievance. The records also indicate the same position and this fact has not been disputed by counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3. In the light of the fact that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal provided under Rules governing his service which remedy he has not availed, it would be just and appropriate that the petitioner be relegated to avail the remedy of appeal before he can approach this Court for redressal of his grievance, if any, thereafter. -2- C.W.P. No. 11988 of 2006. Liberty is therefore, granted to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority within a period of three weeks from today. In case the said appeal is filed within the time stipulated the plea with regard to the appeal being not filed within the time stipulated under the Rules, shall not be available to the respondents No. 2 and 3. With these directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 30,2009. sjks. -3-