ORDER
G.C. Mital, J.
1. The private-respondent was a workman of the petitioner co-operative Bank and he was appointed on 31-5-1979 for 89 days on ad hoc basis till a regular incumbent joined duty. Before the workman was able to complete 240 days, the regular incumbent joined and he was relieved from duty. The workman sought reference on the basis of the demand notice dated 31-5-1984, but the State Government declined to refer the matter.
2. The petitioner resorted to the remedy of appeal before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, under Section 68 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), to challenge the order of termination The workman also challenged the order of the State Government declining to refer the matter by filing CWP No. 142 of 1986 and before the Motion Bench it was pointed out that the workman had already gone in appeal before the Registrar and by order dated 20- 1-1981 the writ petition was dismissed as the workman had already sought the alternative remedy, which be was to pursue.
3. The Registrar considered the matter and by order dated 26th August, 1936, Annexure P6, came to the conclusion that there was no merit in his appeal as he was appointed on ad hoc basis for 89 days, till the regular incumbent was to join and not having completed 240 days be could be relieved. It is true that it was, also mentioned is the order that on technical grounds also no interference was called for.
4. The petitioner again on the same demand notice moved the Government for reference to the Labour Court and by order Annexure P7 passed in 1990 the matter was ordered to be referred to the Labour Court. The Management (The Kapurthala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.) has came to this Court in the writ petition.
5. Once the petitioner elected his remedy of filing appeal under the Act to challenge the order of termination of his service (relieving him from service), and having failed there, the matter could not be reopened by asking the, Government to refer the matter to the Labour Court on the basis of the same demand notice, which was once rejected. The decision of the Registrar would bind the parties. The general principles of res judicata are based on the rule to give finality to decisions so that a party is not vexed twice over on the same matter. The petitioner having resorted to the remedy of appeal under the Act, the order passed on appeal would bind the parties until modified by some superior authority or Court. The workman could not ask the State Government to re open the matter. On these peculiar facts of the case, we are of the view that the appellate order, Annexure P6 passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies disentitled the petitioner to again move the State Government to refer the matter to the Labour Court on the rule of res judicata and finality of decision.
6. For the reasons recorded above, we allow the writ petition and quash the order of the State Government, Annexure P.7, referring the matter to the Labour Court. No costs.