Petition Dismissed: Upheld Disciplinary Penalty for Attempted Pilferage. No Referral to Industrial Tribunal.

The Court dismissed the petition, upholding the disciplinary proceedings and penalty imposed on the petitioner for attempted pilferage. It found the petitioner unable to challenge the dismissal through various forums on different grounds. The decision not to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court was deemed appropriate, supported by the principles of res judicata, constructive res judicata, and the Doctrine of Election to prevent re-litigation and ensure legal finality.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the disciplinary proceedings and the penalty imposed.
2. Applicability of res judicata and constructive res judicata.
3. Appropriateness of the government's decision not to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court.
4. Doctrine of Election.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the disciplinary proceedings and the penalty imposed:
The petitioner, working as a "Palledar" with the respondent, was suspended on 20th July 1991, pending disciplinary proceedings for allegedly attempting to pilfer a bag of sugar. The enquiry officer found the charges proved, leading to the petitioner's removal from service on 6th July 1992. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed on 19th September 1992. The petitioner then filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2376 of 1995, which was dismissed on 21st March 1995. The Court noted that the petitioner failed to show that the non-supply of the enquiry report caused him any prejudice, as required by the Supreme Court's ruling in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others Vs. B. Karunakar and Others.

2. Applicability of res judicata and constructive res judicata:
The petitioner argued that the dismissal of the writ petition did not bar raising an industrial dispute, citing Union of India and another Vs. Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi and others. However, the Court found this argument meritless, stating that the petitioner could not challenge the same removal order on new grounds after having already done so in the writ petition. This is in line with Explanation IV of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which embodies the principle of constructive res judicata, preventing re-litigation of issues that could have been raised initially.

3. Appropriateness of the government's decision not to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court:
The Secretary (Labour) to the Government of NCT of Delhi refused to refer the dispute, reasoning that the petitioner had already agitated his dismissal in the High Court. The Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the government acts in an administrative capacity when deciding whether to refer a dispute and is not delving into adjudication. The Supreme Court in Secretary, India Tea Association Vs. Ajit Kumar Barat and others supported this view, allowing the government to refuse a reference if it determines no industrial dispute exists.

4. Doctrine of Election:
The Court highlighted that the petitioner, having chosen to challenge the dismissal through a writ petition, could not later opt for an industrial dispute. This principle, known as the Doctrine of Election, is based on the maxim that a person cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. The Court cited several cases, including Beepathuma Vs. Shankaranarayana and R.N. Gosain Vs. Yashpal Dhir, to emphasize that once a remedy is chosen, the petitioner is bound by its limitations.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the petitioner could not challenge the dismissal through multiple forums on different grounds. The decision of the appropriate government not to refer the dispute was upheld as valid and within its administrative discretion. The principles of res judicata, constructive res judicata, and the Doctrine of Election were applied to prevent re-litigation and ensure finality in legal proceedings.

---