Judgment :- The petitioner/worker seeks to quash the award of the Additional Labour Court, Maduari, in I.D.No.578 of 1989 dated 2.6.1992 and to direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service of the second respondent/Bank with all benefits and continuity of service. 2. The petitioner was working as the Secretary of the second respondent/Society with effect from 15.12.1967. He was issued with a charge memo 29.5.1979. He was imposed with a penalty of withholding increment for a period of six months without any cumulative effect. He further claims that he was ill and on medical leave from 6.9.1979. However, the management took the disciplinary proceedings against him for certain alleged omissions and commissions. An enquiry was instituted and in spite of his request for adjournment and without granting him an opportunity of being heard, the enquiry was completed and he was dismissed from service by order dated 3.10.1979. Aggrieved by the same, he filed a civil suit in O.S.No.448 of 1980 on the file of Sub-Court, Karur, praying for a declaration that the order of dismissal was invalid and illegal and for consequently for arrears of wages of Rs.9,480/-. The said suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge and on appeal also the learned District Judge, Karur, by judgment and decree dated 9.3.1987 dismissed A.S.No.97 of 1986. Thereafter, the petitioner/employee raised an Industrial Dispute as aforesaid and the Labour Court also rejected the contention of the petitioner. Hence, the above writ petition. 3. The Labour Court though found that the decree of the Civil Court would operate as res judicata, in the alternative, considered the merits also and found against the employee. Inasmuch as I am inclined to agree with the finding of the Labour Court that the relief claimed by the petitioner before the Labour Court was barred by res judicata, I do not propose to go into the merits of the issues relating to the dismissal of the petitioner. 4. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner/employee himself approached the Civil Court by filing a suit for declaration and for recovery of arrears of wages. Before both the Courts he lost his case and the judgment and decree had become final as against him. 4. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner/employee himself approached the Civil Court by filing a suit for declaration and for recovery of arrears of wages. Before both the Courts he lost his case and the judgment and decree had become final as against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner/employee however, raised a contention that inasmuch as the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the issues raised by the employee, the decree has to be held as inoperative. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in CHANDRAKANT TUKARAM NIKAM v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF AHMEDABAD (2002 (2)S.C.C., 542). The Supreme Court on the facts and the nature of the prayer in the case before it, held that the dispute relating to legality of the termination of service, the appropriate relief was to raise an industrial dispute before the forum constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act and that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court will be impliedly barred. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/management in support of his submission that concurrent jurisdiction is available before the Civil Court and the Labour court and that if one of the parties had approached the Civil Court and a binding judgment had been rendered, the party cannot be allowed to approach the forum under the Industrial Disputes Act for the same relief, reliance is placed on the following judgments:- (i) SUKHI RAM v. STATE OF HARYANA (1982 (1) S.L.R., 663). (ii) B.V.RAO v. CHITTIVALASA JUTE MILLS (1990 (I) L.L.N., 35) (A.P.). (iii) WILLARD INDIA, LTD. v. BAGADI VYKUNTARAO (1990 (I) L.L.N., 346). 6. In this case, apart from the fact that it is the petitioner/employee who had himself approached the Civil Court and had received judgment against himself which had become final, it is also seen that a specific issue was raised before the trial Court as to whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the dispute. The finding rendered by the trial Court in paragraph No.45 of the judgment is as follows:- "45. Issue No.3 : The defendant in the written statement contended that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This issue was taken for preliminary trial on an earlier occasion on the direction given by the High Court. The finding rendered by the trial Court in paragraph No.45 of the judgment is as follows:- "45. Issue No.3 : The defendant in the written statement contended that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This issue was taken for preliminary trial on an earlier occasion on the direction given by the High Court. This Court came to the conclusion that the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit and admittedly the parties have not taken the matter in the appeal and as such the finding is final and conclusive." The above extract shows that the issue of jurisdiction was taken up to the High Court as a preliminary issue and the High court has also held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the parties had not taken up the matter on further appeal. The said finding had become final and conclusive. Therefore, apart from the fact the petitioner himself had filed the suit and invited judgment and decree, the said issue had also reached finality by an order of this Court on a revision filed by the petitioner earlier. That being so, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the Civil Court's jurisdiction was barred. 7. In the result, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly. No costs.