9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the second appeal filed by the respondent. Hence he has come up in this Court with this appeal. Appellant was appointed as Inspector on probation at Khalidabad under the Gorakhpur branch of the respondent Company with effect from 19.91980, initially for a period of twelve months subject to certain conditions. On 13.3.1982 respondent-company served upon him thirty days notice of termination of his service on the premise that appellants falled to achieve the targeted premium amount. Appellant filed the suit in the Munsif's Court Gorakhpur for a decree declaring that the said notice of termination is illegal and void and that he continues to be in service of the Company with all the benefits flowing from the post. Respondent-company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent- Company in the second appeal and pressed them into service as substantial questions of law. They are : (1) Whether the termination order is violative of the contractual term that one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof is sine qua non; (2) whether appellant is entitled to reinstatement without entering upon a finding that there was statutory violation ; (3) whether the suit is barred under the Industrial Disputes Act; (4) whether the suit is barred under section 34 of the Act. High Court did not permit the respondent-Company to pursue with the last two questions on the premise that those questions were finally decided in the writ petition and such decision will operate as a bar of res-judicate. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial proceedings. The only exception is that the rule of res judicata would not operate to the detriment or impairment of a fundamental right. A Constitution Bench of this Court has considered the applicability of rule of res judicata in writ proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution in Daryao ors. vs. State of U.P. ors. [1962 (1) SCR 574 ] and it was held that the basis on which the rule rests is founded on consideration of public policy and it is in the interest of public at large that a finality should attach to the binding decision pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction and it is also in the public interest that individuals should not be vexed twice over in the same kind of litigation. This was relterated by ano ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Though the said explanation may not stricto sensu apply to the trial stage, the principle couched in it must gain application thereto. It is immaterial that the writ petition was filed only subsequently because the findings made therein became final as no appeal was filed against the judgement. The basic idea in the rule of res judicata has sprouted from the maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro una at eadem causa (no man should be vexed twice over for the same cause). In Y.B. Patil ors vs. Y.L. Patil [1976 (4) SCC 66] a three-Judge Bench of this Court considered the effect of a decision rendered in a writ petition at subsequent stages of the same its. It held : The principles of res judicata can be invoked not only in separat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined on the basis of the ostensible pleadings made and the stated reliefs claimed in the plaint. Though Specific Relief Act widens the spheres of the civil court its preamble shows that the Act is not exhaustive of all kinds of specific reliefs. An Act to define and amend the law relating to certain kinds of specific relief. It is well to remember that the Act is not restricted to specific performance of contracts as the statute governs powers of the court in granting specific reliefs in a variety of fields. Even so, the Act does not cover all specific reliefs in a variety of fields. Even so, the Act does not cover all specific reliefs concievable. Its preceding enactment (Specific Relief Act, 1877) was held by the courts in India as no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exhaust every kind of declaratory relief or to circumscribe the jurisdiction of courts to give declarations of right in appropriate cases falling outside Section 42. The position remains the same under the present Act also. Hence the mere fact that a suit which is not maintainable under Section 14 of the Act is not to persist with its disability of non admission to civil courts even outside the contours of Chapter II of the Act. Section 34 is enough to open the corridors of civil courts to admit suits filed for a variety of declaratory reliefs. How the more important question is, whether appellant is entitled to declaration that he continues to be in the employment of respondent-company. High Court held that he is not because the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
