ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.

1. Plaintiff Amarjit Singh, who was employed as Conductor in the Punjab roadways, was charge-sheeted for misconduct and vide order dated August 6, 1976 his services were terminated. Against the termination of his services, he filed an appeal before the department-Appellate Authority and his appeal was dismissed. After dismissal of the appeal, the appellant issued a demand notice dated February 10, 1978, pursuant to which conciliation proceedings were held. However, ultimately on September 21, 1978 the government declined to make the reference. The appellant filed the present suit on August 21, 1978 praying therein that his termination orders be set aside. Both the trial Court as well as the. lower appellate Court have dismissed the suit and the subsequent appeal of the appellant, on the ground that since the appellant had already chosen a particular forum, i. e. , the labour Court, therefore, now he is estopped from agitating the same matter before the civil court, thus, both the Courts below have non-suited the appellant on the ground that jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred under such circumstances.

2. The sole question that arises in the present case is: when a person seeks remedy under a particular Act and on the declining of the relief under the said Act, can he prefer the same relief before the Civil Court?

3. Mr. Arun Palli, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that merely electing a remedy would not tantamount to availing or exhausting it under the Act and, therefore, the declining of the reference to the Labour Court would stop the appellant from moving the Civil Court. On the other hand, the stand taken on behalf of the appellant had been controverted by Mr. J. S. Bedi, Assistant Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State. Mr. Bedi has relied upon the observations of the lower appellate Court made in para No.14 of the judgment in order to contend that once the appellant had chosen a particular forum, then he could not seek the remedy under the civil Court.

4. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contention advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. There is no dispute that the plaintiff-appellant had issued a demand notice dated February 10, 1978, pursuant to which conciliation proceedings were held. There is also no dispute that the Government had declined to make the reference to the Labour Court vide order dated August 21, 1978. Now the question arises whether by issuing a demand notice to the government, the appellant had availed of the remedy provided under the Industrial Disputes act, 1947? The Government has not referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. Thus, it stands amply proved that a judicial remedy has been made available to the appellant with the refusal of the Government to make a reference to the Labour Court. In this way, though the appellant had elected to avail the remedy provided under the Industrial Disputes act, 1947, but it cannot be said that he had availed of the remedy under the said Act when he had moved the Civil Court for the redressal of his grievance. For this view, I am fortified by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in workmen of New Snow View Transport Pvt. Ltd. , pathankot V/s. State of Punjab through Secy, to govt. , Labour and Employment Department, chandigarh and Ors. , AIR 1970 Pandh 412, wherein it has been held by their Lordships that an order of reference under Sec.10 (1) of the industrial Disputes Act is an administrative act of the Government. " Similarly, in the case of Telco convoy Drivers Mazdoor-Sangh and Anr. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. , AIR 1989 SC 1565 : 1989 (3)SCC 271 : 1989-II-LLJ-558, it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under at p.560 of LLJ:

"while exercising power under Sec.10 (1)the function of the appropriate Government is an administrative function and not a judicial or quasi-judicial function and that in performing this administrat