Judgment : Oral Judgement: 1. Heard Advocate Shri P.S. Tidke, holding for Advocate Shri M.V. Samarth, for petitioner and Shri P.D. Kothari, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents. 2. Challenge in Writ Petition is to judgment dated 03.08.2004 delivered by the Industrial Court, Bhandara disposing of ULP Complaint No.105/2003 with direction to the respondent . State Government that, if, adhoc vacancy for Leprosy Technician becomes available priority should be given to the present petitioner as per his seniority. The complaint has been disposed of after noticing that the petitioner had earlier approached Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 834/2000 and the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal granted limited relief to him. 3. The learned Counsel for petitioner has contended that the Original Application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal was filed before termination and that application was disposed of on 210.2002 with observation that, if the present petitioner was in service, he was entitled to continue as adhoc appointee and should not be replaced by any other adhoc appointee. It is stated that inspite of this by communication dated 07.01.2003, the respondents directed termination of service by the petitioner and then said termination was questioned before the Industrial Court in ULPA Complaint No.145/2003 making a grievance that as petitioner had put in continuous service of more than 240 days as Leprosy Technician, he has acquired the status of permanency by operation of law and by not making him permanent as Leprosy Technician and by continuing him on adhoc basis as such, as also by attempting to fill in the post of leprosy technician through other candidates, the employer was indulging in unfair labour practice falling under Item nos. 5,6,7,9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred as .1971 Act.). It is contended that thus subject matter of two proceedings was entirely different and as such the approach to Industrial Court in subsequent matter could not have been treated as barred and the impugned judgment dated 03.08.2004 is unsustainable. It is also argued that as on today there are more than 25 vacancies of Leprosy Technician and hence the petitioner is entitled to grant of relief of regularisation and permanency. 4. It is also argued that as on today there are more than 25 vacancies of Leprosy Technician and hence the petitioner is entitled to grant of relief of regularisation and permanency. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents on the other hand contends that grant of such relief by Industrial Court will be directly in conflict with the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. He states that the petitioner had two remedies and he elected to approach Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, and hence it was not open for him to later on approach the Industrial Court. He further states that the employment with the respondents being public employment, there is no question of any adhoc appointee being regularised or given permanent appointment in violation of Rules of recruitment. He contends that in view of this position only the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has granted limited relief by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana .vrs. Piara Singh and others ( AIR 1992 SC 2130 ) but, it has not been approved by the Honble Apex Court in its constitutional bench judgment in paragraph no.20 in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka .vrs. Umadevi (AIR 2006 SC 1806). Perusal of the order dated 210.2002 delivered by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal reveals that, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has found that the present petitioner was appointed as Leprosy Technician on adhoc post for 4 months vide order dt. 20.03.2000 and was again appointed similarly for a period of 4 months from 28.2000. This appointment was to come to end on 212.2000 and before that i.e. on 20.12.2000 he filed Original Application before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. Being adhoc appointee he was only entitled to limited relief and accordingly the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal granted him protection of service by observing that, if, he was qualified to hold the post and employer wanted to continue someone in that post, the employee/ petitioner would be continued as adhoc appointee and he would not be replaced by any other adhoc person. Obviously this has been done by following the judgment in the case of State of Haryana .vrs. Piara Singh (supra). Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has also found that the petitioner had no right to post and therefore, entitled to continue only as adhoc appointee. 5. Obviously this has been done by following the judgment in the case of State of Haryana .vrs. Piara Singh (supra). Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has also found that the petitioner had no right to post and therefore, entitled to continue only as adhoc appointee. 5. In the face of this finding, the petitioner sought to urge that because of completion of 240 days of service he stood regularised and approached Industrial Court after his termination. It is therefore, clear that nature of his challenge before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and also before the Industrial Court was one and the same i.e. long service put in by him. In present case, long service is of 8 months only with some gap in between. It is not in dispute that the employment being public employment the court cannot direct employer to fill in the post and therefore, Maharashtra Administrative Tribunals observation that, if, employer wanted to continue any person as leprosy technician in adhoc capacity, present petitioner would be continued. However, in view of the later judgment mentioned above, this position also does not hold good. Not only this the Industrial Court could not have even observed that by completion of 240 days of service, the petitioner has gained permanency or was entitled to be regularised, and such finding by it would have been in direct conflict with the view taken by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner initially had two option i.e. he could have approached either Industrial Court or Labour Court challenging the apprehended termination and praying for regularization or for grant of permanency, or then in the alternative he could have approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. He chose one of the forums and therefore, by implication the other forum was lost to him. The doctrine of election as explained by the Honble Apex Court in paragraph no.23 in the case of Premier Automobiles Ltd. .vrs. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke (1975 AIR SC 2238), squarely covers the controversy. 6. Though the Industrial Court has found that the complaint was not maintainable, it has sufficiently protected the petitioner by observing that, if any vacancy as adhoc appointee was sought to be filled in by the respondent, the petitioner would be given his due priority as per his seniority. Neither Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal nor the Industrial Court could have given better or more relief in him than this. Neither Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal nor the Industrial Court could have given better or more relief in him than this. I find that present challenge is thus misconceived. No case is made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed. No cost.