JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner an employee of the State Bank of India has filed this Writ Petition with the prayer that the order dated 22nd July, 1982 in respect of his transfer may be quashed.The order dated 22nd July, 1982 reads as under : State Bank of India, Jaipur, Shri N.L. Sharma, B-189, Nehrunagar, Jaipur B.M. No. 340 Registered A.D. Dated : 22nd July, 1982 31st Aug. 1904 (S) Dear Sir, Staff : Clerical/Cash Transfer It has been decided to transfer you to our A.D.B. Chhitossdri Branch permanently. Accordingly, you are being relieved from this branch as at the close of business today with instructions to report for duty to the Branch Manager, A D.B. Chhoti Sadri after availing yourself of the usual joining time. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Branch Manager (A.C. Jain) 2. It appears that the petitioner has either created or unwittingly remained under fumes and fire from the very inception of his joining the respondents as clerk. He joined on 17th May, 1973 and he was terminated from the services on 31st August, 1974. This led to a reference and while the Industrial Tribunal was seized of the matter there was an agreement to treat the petitioner as substantive from 15th March, 1978. The award followed on 2nd March, 1979. 3. The controversy was not over as according to the petitioner, the Bank did not implement the above agreement and award. He was posted as clerk-cum-cashier at Sawai Madhopur, which according to the petitioner was a breach of award. However, the petitioner was successful in getting himself posted at Jaipur. Even the question of hearing expenses of transfer from Sawai-madhopur to Jaipur became the subject matter of controversy and generated heat between the parties. 4. At Jaipur when he was assigning the duties of cashier in Sangeneri gate Branch, he protested. The petitioner then raised dispute about his over time payment and put the management in the dock under Section 33(C-2.) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the labour court. Two application are yet pending. 5. Treating the above disputes as minor, the petitioner claims that he raised a major dispute regarding destruction of the bundles of currency notes of various denomination in fact not containing the requisite number of notes. On his complaint the petitioner was issued a memo on 9th March, 1981 alleging inefficiency in supervision. 6. Two application are yet pending. 5. Treating the above disputes as minor, the petitioner claims that he raised a major dispute regarding destruction of the bundles of currency notes of various denomination in fact not containing the requisite number of notes. On his complaint the petitioner was issued a memo on 9th March, 1981 alleging inefficiency in supervision. 6. In January, 1982 according to the petitioner a branch of State Bank of India Employees Association have been opened at Jaipur and the petitioner has been elected as Secretary of the Association on January 3, 1982. The petitioner's case is that the information of the above election was given to all concerned and the list of protected workers was also sent in view of para No. 3 of the Shastri Award. But the management issued a letter on 22nd July 1982 transferring the petition, from Jaipur to Chhoti Sadari. The petitioner submits that this is a mala fide ait of victimisation and this order should be quashed. According to the petitioner, the Shastri Award statutory in character in view of Section 18 of l e Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Para No. 535 of the above award, have been violated. Para 535 reads as under:- "(i) Every registered Bank Employee Union from lime to time shall furnish the names of the President, Vice-President and the Secretary. (ii) Except in very special cases whet ever the transfer of any of the above mentioned office bearers is contemplated at least 3 clear working days notice should be put up on the notice Board of the Bank of such contemplated action. (iii) Any representation, written or ora I, made by the Union shall be considered by the Bank. (iv) If any order of transfer is ultimately made a record shall be made by the Bank of such representation and the Bank's reasons for regarding them as inadequate. (v) The decision ; hall be communicated to the Union as well as to the employee concerned." 7. In support of his contention, the petitioner has submitted a letter of the Regional Labour Commissioner, Ajmer dated 24-2-1983, by which a certified copy of the letter dated 3-1-82 of the petitioner addressed as Secretary to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ajmer has been sent. The letter dated 3-1-1982 of the petitioner reads as under:- State Bank of India, Jaipur-302003 Dated 3-1-82. Ref. No. J.P./4/82 To : The Asstt. The letter dated 3-1-1982 of the petitioner reads as under:- State Bank of India, Jaipur-302003 Dated 3-1-82. Ref. No. J.P./4/82 To : The Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central) 161/x, Civil Lines, Ajmer, Raj. Dear Sir, List of protected employees under Industrial Disputes Act and Shastri Award. x x x x In terms of para 535 of Sastry Award, we give below the list of office bearers of the Association duly elected by the members in their General Body meeting held on 3-1-1982 under the Chairmanship of Shri N. L. Khurana, for the year 1981-83. President : Shri Bansi Lai Chohan Vice-President "Kalyan Singh Secretary "Narain Lal Sharma Joint Secretary "Gulab Chand Sharma Yours faithfully, Sd/- (N.L. Sharma) Secretary. 8. The respondent bank has vehemently opposed the petition and denied all the allegations. 9. The bank has raised the preliminary objections that a civil suit was filed against the respondents for permanent injunction and the petitioner in the suit prayed as under:- (1) That a decree for permanent injunction be passed against the defendants not to transfer the plaintiff outside Jaipur and to make full compliance of the Award by which the plaintiff was posted for the purpose of Jaipur Branch only. (2) Cost of the suit, and (3) Any other Relief, which may be granted in favour of the plaintiff" (Para 2 of the reply) 10. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 was filed by the petitioner and the reply was submitted by the respondents. The Additional Munsif (Eastj, Jaipur City dismissed the application vide order dated 2nd December, 1981, but the suit is still pending in the court of Additional Munsif, Jaipur City. 11. It was further pointed out that the Regional Secretary of the State Bank of India Employees Association raised an Industrial Dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner by his letter dated 12th July, 1982 against the transfer of the petitioner. The proceedings were started under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act and while they were pending, the Union suddenly withdrew their case and requested that the proceedings may be quashed. 12. The respondents have also submitted that the transfer is not against the Shastri Award and there is no case of victimisation or mala fides. 13. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 14. 12. The respondents have also submitted that the transfer is not against the Shastri Award and there is no case of victimisation or mala fides. 13. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 14. It is not in dispute that a civil suit No. 207/81 is pending and a prayer for permanent injunction has been make in that case. The prayer is that a decree should be passed against the defendants not to transfer the plaintiff outside the Jaipur and to made full compliance of the Award, by which the plaintiff was posted for the purposes of Jaipur Branch only. An application for injunction has been dismissed on 2-12-1981. Annexure 15 has be;a submitted by the petitioner in this connection. 15. The pendency of the civil suit is not denied by the petitioner. Since a civil suit is pending, in which the petitioner wants a permanent injunction to be issued against the respondents for not transferring the petitioner outside Jaipur, the Civil Court is seized of the matter and the issue involved in it. One of the important issues involved is whether the petitioner cannot be transferred out-side Jaipur on account of the Award. 16. It is well known that in pending Civil Suit a party can always file an application for temporary injunction, if there is a development subsequently and such application is decided on its own merit. 17. Obviously the first application was dismissed and I would not like to go into the controversy of the circumstances because it is always open to the plaintiff to move second application, if fresh transfer order is passed against the Award. 18. A petitioner cannot be allowed to persue a civil suit with the same request and also file a regular writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution and make the same prayer. In substance of the prayer of the petitioner-plaintiff is that he should not be transferred out-side Jaipur because he is an active bearer of the Union and further because the transfer on account of the earlier background of bad blood between the parties, is an act of victimisation and is inspired by malice and mala fides. How can this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution decide this fact when a civil suit is pending adjudication. 19. How can this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution decide this fact when a civil suit is pending adjudication. 19. Resort to two identical proceedings ; one before the civil court and another in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not only not permissible at the same time but, is to be highly deprecated for various reasons. Firstly, the High Court never interferes under Article 226 of the Constitution, if there is an alternative effective efficacious remedy available to the petitioner. Secondly, the High Court would not interfere if the proceedings for the same subject matter are pending in a civil court against the same parties. Thirdly, after rejection of the injunction application in the civil court, the petitioner has got a remedy of filing an appeal or revision as the case may be and he cannot file this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 20. I am, therefore, of the opinion that this writ petition cannot be entertained and the proper course for the petitioner is to move an application before the Civil Court for grant of temporary injunction in case fresh new developments have taken place after rejection of the first application. 21. I would, therefore, refrain from giving any finding on the merits of the case whether there is an violation of the Award and whether the petitioner can be given any relief by way of cancellation of his transfer, 22. The result of the above discussion is that the preliminary objection of the respondents that this writ petition cannot be entertained during the pendency of the civil suit, is accepted. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs, but it is made clear that it would not preclude the petitioner from proceedings in the civil suit and moving for application for injunction in that suit.Petition dismissed. *******