JUDGMENT - MOHTA V.A., J.: - By these two petitions, one by the employer Shri Shivaji Agricultural College, Amravati and the other by an employee, Mukhtyar Ahmed, the award dated 4th January, 1983 made by the first Labour Court, Akola in a reference under section 10(a) read with sections 12(5) and 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the ID Act) is challenged. By the said award, relief of reinstatement is granted to the employee but not of back wages and hence grievance by both. 2. Mukhtyar Ahmed was in the employment of the College as a clerk-cum-typist since 2-8-1963. He remained absent from 16-2-1978 to 19th May, 1978 without permission. Treating him as a deserter, his services were terminated by order dated 19-5-1978 in terms of Clause 61 of Ordinance No. 32 framed under the Nagpur University Act, 1963 which continues to be in force in view of section 91 of the Nagpur University Act, 1974. It provides for automatic termination on the ground of deemed desertion. Chapter VI gives a list of acts and omissions which constitute mis-conduct. Habitual absence without prior permission or grant of leave in writing from the Competent Authority is one such mis-conduct as per Clause 45(e). Being aggrieved by the order of termination, Mukhtyar Ahmed filed a complaint on 18-1-1979 before the Labour Court at Akola under section 7 read with section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (the Act of 1971) mentioning that what College did amount to an unfair labour practice as contemplated in Schedule IV of the Act. After hearing parties, the complaint was dismissed on the ground of limitation on 15-6-1981. 3. Thereafter, Mukhtyar Ahmed initiated proceedings for reference under the ID Act in respect of the same matter. Conciliation was not possible and reference was made by the Government to the Labour Court. In the trial there, College raised several contentions including about maintainability of the proceedings in view of the order dated 15-6-1981 passed under the Act of 1971. Labour Court held that it was in fact a case of dismissal on the ground of misconduct without any departmental enquiry and, therefore, termination was bad. As a result, reinstatement with continuity of services was ordered buy having regard to the whole background, claim for back wages was rejected. Point about maintainability was not decided. 4. Labour Court held that it was in fact a case of dismissal on the ground of misconduct without any departmental enquiry and, therefore, termination was bad. As a result, reinstatement with continuity of services was ordered buy having regard to the whole background, claim for back wages was rejected. Point about maintainability was not decided. 4. Shri Bobde, the learned Counsel for the college, relying on section 59 of the Act of 1971 contended that the second proceedings before the Labour Court under the circumstances were barred. Section 59 reads thus: “59. If any proceeding in respect of any matter falling within the purview of this Act is instituted under this Act, then no proceeding shall at any time be entertained by any authority in respect of that matter under the Central Act or, as the case may be, the Bombay Act; and if any proceeding in respect of any matter within the purview of this Act is instituted under the Central Act, or as the case may be, the Bombay Act, then no proceeding shall at any time be entertained by the Industrial or Labour Court under this Act.” Central Act referred to in the above section means the ID Act and Bombay Act means the Bombay Industrial Relations Act (BIR) Act. Having regard to the clear language used in the above provision, the contention seems to be well founded. True it is, as argued by shri Shareef, the learned Counsel for Mukhtyar Ahmed, that the earlier decision under the Act of 1971 is not on merits, but that seems to make no difference in the applicability of section 59. Use of the word “instituted” is significant specially when it is contrasted with the use of the word “entertained” in that very section. In India institution means presentation of the matter. That is the first stage, second being its entertaining, the third being the trial and the fourth being the decision. In the instant case, even the fourth stage was over. If bar operates even if the first stage is reached, it is difficult to see how it will cease to operate only because at the last final stage, the matter is decided only on limitation. It is wrong to assume that section 59 is based only on the principles of res judicata. Legislative policy seems to restrict the choice of remedy and forum. It is wrong to assume that section 59 is based only on the principles of res judicata. Legislative policy seems to restrict the choice of remedy and forum. The Act of 1971 on the one hand and the ID Act and the BIR Act on the other have many overlapping provisions and hence legislature mandated to choose at the very threshold any of the remedies for such overlapping matters. Once a choice is made and the matter is presented, the other remedy is lost and proceedings under the other set of Acts cannot be “entertained”. ID Act provides for conciliation in certain cases and hence proceedings under the said Act will be deemed to be instituted not before reference is made as held by Single Bench (Jamdar, J.) of this Court in Writ Petition No. 423 of 1982, decided on 22-4-1982 (Mahendra Gajanan Kharsar and others v. Zonal Manager, Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd.)1. The proceedings before the Labour Court on a reference were thus wrongly entertained and the consequent award passed therein was without jurisdiction. 5. In the result, Writ Petition No. 284 of 1983 filed by the College is allowed and the rule therein is made absolute. The award is quashed and set aside. As a necessary consequence, Writ Petition No. 695 of 1984 filed by Mukhtyar Ahmed must be dismissed and rule therein has to be discharged. Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly. -----