TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 1085X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing penalty of removal from service. Petitioner filed statutory appeal which was also rejected vide order dated 19th September, 1992. Thereafter, petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2376 of 1995 in this Court praying for quashing of order of punishment. This petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 21st March, 1995. The said order reads as under:- The Counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others Vs . B. Karunakar and Others, (1994)ILLJ162SC wherein it has been laid down that before awarding of punishment a show cause notice proposing the penalty is to be given to the delinquent officer Along with a copy of the enquiry report. But the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also laid down that punishment awarded in the disciplinary proceedings where no copy of the enquiry report has been supplied would not be set at naught unless and until the delinquent officer shows that some prejudice has been caused to such person by non-supply of the copy of the enquiry report. In the present case the petitioner has not given any facts which could show that non-supply of copy of the enquir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... support of their submission, petitioner relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi and others [1996]2SCR761 . It was also submitted that the writ petition was based on different cause of action that the cause of action on which industrial dispute was founded inasmuch as in Civil Writ Petition No. 2376 of 1995 the penalty of removal was challenged on the ground that respondent No. 2 the disciplinary authority had not supplied the copy of the enquiry report before imposing the penalty whereas the industrial dispute was raised on the ground that proper enquiry was not held and the findings of the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report were not based on evidence and were perverse. Therefore, according to the petitioner, he could raise the industrial dispute notwithstanding dismissal of this writ petition. It was further argued that respondent No. 2 itself in the counter affidavit filed in Civil Writ Petition No. 2376 of 1995 had taken the objection that writ petition was not maintainable and petitioner had efficacious remedy under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and in this view of the matter it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be done directly would not be permitted to be done indirectly. Matter can be looked into from another angle also. When more than one for a are available to the petitioner to challenge a particular order and he elects to choose one forum, thereafter he is precluded from choosing other for a for same cause of action. This is popularly known as 'Doctrine of Election' which is based on the maxim that a person cannot approbate or reprobate at the same time . This same principle is stated in White and Tudor's Leading Cases in Equity Vol. 1 and Eds. at page 444 as follows:- Election is the obligation imposed upon a party by Courts of equity to choose between two inconsistent or alternative rights or claims in cases where there is clear intention of the person from whom he derives one that he should not enjoy both. 7. This doctrine has been applied in India also, based on sound public policy (refer Beepathuma Vs. Shankaranarayana [1964]5SCR836 , R.N. Gosain Vs. Yashpal Dhir AIR1993SC352 , Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar Vs. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat, [1970]1SCR322 ). 8. In the present case this Court had dismissed the writ petition by passing speaking order. it is a m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent that this aspect could only be decided by Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal on reference being adjudicatory function was repelled in the following words:- Mr. Bharat has urged that the question whether he was a workman is a dispute question of fact and can be decided only by the Industrial Tribunal and not by the State Government. In this connection, he has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Abad Dairy Oudh Vitran Kendra Sanchalak Mandal Vs. Abad Dairy Others (1993)IIILLJ855SC . This Court observed as follows: Having regard to the facts and voluminous evidence sought to be adduced by both parties, the question whether the appellants are workmen requires detailed investigation of facts. The issue requires detailed examination and can be satisfactorily adjudicated upon only by a Tribunal. Thus, it appears in that case the question required detailed investigation in view of voluminous evidence sought to be adduced but it is not so, in the case in hand. Therefore, the above decision is not relevant for our purpose. The ratio laid down by this Court in Prem Kumar (supra) squarely covers this appeal as it does not appear from the order that the State Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
