A civil suit filed by an employee challenging dismissal from service operates as res judicata and bars the employee from raising an industrial dispute on the same cause before the Labour Court under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

, J.

1. In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited, the petitioner, challenges the award of the Labour Court Annexure P-3, dated February 24, 1992, whereby dismissal of Kapil Dev Sharma-respondent No. 2 was held to be illegal. His re-instatement with 50% of the back wages was ordered. The dismissal was held to be illegal as proper procedure was not followed in conducting the enquiry. The case of the petitioner is based on the plea of constructive resjudicata, as respondent No. 2 had challenged the action of the petitioner in a civil suit and failed. On February 17, 1981, a charge-sheet was framed against respondent No. 2 by the Management-petitioner. On that very day respondent No. 2 was placed under suspension. After the enquiry was held, the order of dismissal was passed on June 15, 1982. Respondent No. 2, Kapil Dev Sharma filed a civil suit claiming re-instatement after one year of suspension and arrears of pay. The suit was filed on October 14, 1983. After trial the suit was dismissed on December 9, 1986. The appeal was filed before the District Judge, which was dismissed on December 1, 1987. At this state, it may be noticed that an application was filed before the Appellate Court for amendment of the plaint to challenge the order of dismissal, which was rejected. A demand notice was issued by respondent No. 2 on February 12, 1988, on which the State Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Ultimately, the Labour Court gave the award on February 24, 1992-Annexure P/3.

2. On notice of motion having been issued, respondent No. 2 has contested the writ petition by filing the written statement. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and the documents produced. We have heard counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioner-Corporation is a State Undertaking and its employee respondent No. 2 if aggrieved by the order of dismissal, had alternative remedies, i. e. either before the civil court or by reference before the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Supreme Court in The Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke, A. I. R. 1975 S. C. 2238, laid down four principles with respect to the respective jurisdiction of the civil court as well as the Labour Court in such like matters Such principles are as under :-

"(1) If the dispute is not an industrial dispute, nor does ill relate to enforcement of any other right under the Act the remedy lies only in the civil court.

(2) If the dispute is an industrial dispute arising out of a right or liability under the general or common law and not under the Act, the jurisdiction of the civil court is alternative, leaving it to the election of the suitor concerned to choose his remedy for the relief which is competent to be granted in a particular remedy.

(3) If the industrial dispute relates to the enforcement of a right or an obligation created under the Act, then the only remedy available to the suiter is to get an adjudication under the Act.

(4) If the right which is sought to be enforced is a right created under the Act such as Chapter VA then the remedy for its enforcement is either section 33C or the raising of an industrial dispute as the case may be."

The matter was considered by the Full Bench of this Court in Sukh Ram v. State of Haryana, (1982) 84 P. L. R. 717. The rule of law as laid in the case of The Premier Automobiles Ltd. (supra), was relied upon. The case of the present type would be fully covered by the second principle, as laid down by the Supreme Court in The Premier Automobiles case (supra). Respondent No. 2 had alternative remedy, i.e. either to approach the civil court or to get the dispute referred to the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act. He chose to file the civil suit. The decision in the civil suit would, thus, operate as resjudicata, applying the principles of constructi