ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 28th June, 2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi as also the order dated 18th January, 2002 and 9th April, 2002 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Koderma in BSE Case No. 4 Of 1996 and 1/2001. 2. As the case can be disposed of on short points, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one. 3. The Labour Superintendent, Koderma while filed a petition before the Labour Court, Hazaribagh also filed a petition before Assistant Labour Commissioner, Koderma for payment of salary of the workmen the respondent, which was alleged to be due from the employer, the petitioner herein. An application under Section 28 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act was also filed by the 5th respondent before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Giridih, claiming salary from 10th August, 1995 to 11.1.1996 amounting to Rs. 5250/- and the over-time for the period from January, 1995 to January, 1996, which was registered as PW 8 of 1996. The aforesaid case remained pending for years together and the applicant having failed to produce any evidence and not having taken any steps in the matter, the said case was dismissed in February, 2002. 4. It appears that in spite of passing of the order dated 1st February, 2002 by the Labour Court, Hazaribagh, the matter was taken up by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Koderma, who registered a case bearing BSE No. 1 of 2001 and heard the said case with BSE Case No. 4 of 1996 which was instituted regarding the same claim and regarding the same period, wherein the impugned order was passed on 9th April, 2002. It was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 27,381.20 ps. towards the dues and interest in favour of the workman for the period aforesaid. It further appears that the petitioner preferred an appeal being BSE Appeal No. 1 of 2002 before the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi against the order dated 18.1.2002 passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner, Hazaribagh in BSE Case No. 1 of 2001 and the order dated 9th April, 2002 passed in BSE Case No. 4 of 1996 and 1 of 2001. 5. It further appears that the petitioner preferred an appeal being BSE Appeal No. 1 of 2002 before the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi against the order dated 18.1.2002 passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner, Hazaribagh in BSE Case No. 1 of 2001 and the order dated 9th April, 2002 passed in BSE Case No. 4 of 1996 and 1 of 2001. 5. The facts, as noticed above, has also been brought to the notice of the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi, but the said appeal was dismissed being barred by limitation. The petition for condonation, as was filed by the petitioner, was not allowed. 6. The 5th respondent has appeared,. but has not disputed the aforesaid fact. 7. It is not disputed that the claim of workman was only relating to payment of wages for the period from 10th August, 1995to January, 1996 amounting to Rs., 5.250/- and over time for the period from January, 1995 to 11th January, 1996. At the instance of Labour Superintendent, a case was registered before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Koderma being BSE Case No. 4 of 1995. For the same claim in respect of the same workman, another case being PW 8 of 1996 was also registered before the Labour Court, Hazaribagh. For the same period and for the same claim in respect of the same workman, a third case was also registered under Section 28 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act i.e. BSE Case No. 1 of 2001 at the instance of the workman before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Hazaribagh. 8. The respondents have failed to show as to how BSE Case No. 4 of 1996 and BSE Case No. 1 of 2001 were subsequently taken up and decided on merit by Assistant Labour Commissioner, Koderma vide order dated 9th April, 2002, when the matter had already reached finality, PW Case No. 8 of 1996having been dismissed by the Labour Court, Koderma on 1st February, 2002, in respect to the same relief. The subsequent claim of the same relief being not maintainable, it was not open for the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Koderma to decide the case. It appears that only to harass the employer, the workman went on filing one or other case directly or through the Labour Superintendent and thereafter did not chose to pursue the old case (s) and chosen a forum, according to his own choice. 9. It appears that only to harass the employer, the workman went on filing one or other case directly or through the Labour Superintendent and thereafter did not chose to pursue the old case (s) and chosen a forum, according to his own choice. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 9th April, 2002 passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner, Koderma in BSE Case No. 4 of 1996 and BSE Case No. 1 of 2001, cannot sustain. The said order is set aside and accordingly the order dated 28th June, 2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal. Ranchi is also set aside. 10. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.