Availability of a cooperative service remedy does not bar recourse under the Industrial Disputes Act.

Respondent No. 2 was employed as a Salesman by the appellant-Society and was subsequently made In-charge of its Consumer Cell.

Following closure of the Consumer Cell, his services were terminated pursuant to a resolution dated 24 May 1999.

He raised an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”).

By award dated 15 September 2011, the Labour Court held the retrenchment illegal and contrary to the mandatory provisions of the ID Act, directing reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages.

The appellant’s writ petition challenging the award was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 28 April 2025.

The Society thereafter filed the present intra-court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent, principally contending that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction because the workman had already availed a remedy under the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Service Societies Service Rules, 1997 (“1997 Rules”).

Whether a workman having more than one statutory remedy can be precluded from invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the ID Act merely because he has already pursued a remedy under the 1997 Rules?

Whether the doctrine of election of remedies barred the workman from pursuing the remedy under the ID Act?

Whether the appellant could challenge the Labour Court’s grant of reinstatement and 50% back wages for the first time in the intra-court appeal, when no argument on the merits of the award had been advanced before the learned Single Judge?

The Court applied the provisions and scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 concerning adjudication of industrial disputes and statutory protection against illegal retrenchment.

It considered the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act and the 1997 Rules, holding that neither expressly excludes the jurisdiction of the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal over disputes involving retrenchment or violation of labour laws.

Relying on Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. M. Ramadevi, (2008) 3 SCC 379, and Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay, (1976) 1 SCC 496, the Court held that the existence of an alternative remedy under cooperative service regulations does not oust the jurisdiction under the ID Act unless there is a specific statutory exclusion.

It further followed the Division Bench ruling in Savitri Devi v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and Others, LPA No. 1908 of 2018, decided on 12 September 2024, which held that a workman possessing multiple statutory remedies is free to choose the remedy pursued and cannot be compelled to exhaust an alternative departmental remedy before invoking the ID Act.

The doctrine of election of remedies applies only where the available remedies are inconsistent; the remedy under the ID Act, including reinstatement, back wages and other labour-law reliefs, is distinct from and not inconsistent with the remedy under departmental rules.

The Court held that the workman’s pursuit of a remedy under the 1997 Rules did not deprive the Labour Court of jurisdiction under the ID Act.

The cooperative legislation and the 1997 Rules contained no express bar excluding industrial adjudication, and the remedies under the two regimes were not inconsistent: the ID Act provided statutory labour-law relief, including reinstatement and back wages, which could not necessarily be granted under the departmental rules.

The Court also noted that the jurisdictional issue had already been settled by the binding Division Bench decision in Savitri Devi, and that the parties had proceeded before the learned Single Judge on the basis that the issue stood so decided.

As to the reinstatement and back-wage directions, the appellant had not challenged the award on merits before the learned Single Judge; therefore, it could not raise that challenge for the first time in the Letters Patent Appeal.

No illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error was established in the Single Judge’s judgment.

The doctrine of election of remedies did not bar the industrial dispute, as the two remedies were not inconsistent and there was no statutory exclusion of the Labour Court’s jurisdiction.

The challenge to reinstatement and 50% back wages was also rejected because it had not been raised before the learned Single Judge.

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed as meritless, with no order as to costs, and all pending civil miscellaneous applications were disposed of.