2003 (10) TMI 703 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the termination of the respondent's service was wrongful.
2. Whether the industrial dispute raised by the respondent was barred by the principles of res judicata.

Issue 1: Termination of Service

The respondent, appointed temporarily in 1983, failed to report for duty between May and June 1986, citing communal clashes or a complaint against him. Upon seeking reappointment, the appellant refused. The respondent filed a writ petition seeking reinstatement and regularization, which was dismissed. Despite being allowed to apply for permanent posts, the respondent's application was rejected. Subsequently, the respondent raised an industrial dispute challenging the termination of his service. The Labour Court ruled in favor of the respondent, directing reinstatement with full back wages and benefits. The High Court dismissed the appellant's challenge, mandating a supernumerary post for the respondent. The appellant contended that the earlier litigation's decision was final and the dispute was barred by res judicata.

Issue 2: Res Judicata

The appellant argued that the industrial dispute was the same subject matter as the earlier writ proceedings, invoking res judicata. The Supreme Court upheld this argument, citing that the principle applies to prevent re-litigation of issues already decided. The Court emphasized that the High Court's decision on the writ petition was final, and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to revisit the matter. As the earlier decision was competent and final, the Labour Court's award was set aside based on Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court concluded that the High Court erred in upholding the Labour Court's decision, allowing the appeals and nullifying both the High Court's decision and the Labour Court's award.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the industrial dispute raised by the respondent was barred by res judicata, as it pertained to the same subject matter as the earlier writ proceedings. The Court set aside the decisions of the High Court and the Labour Court, emphasizing that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to re-decide a matter already finalized by the High Court. The appellant was not entitled to recover any amount paid to the respondent under the Industrial Disputes Act, and no costs were awarded.