9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty. According to the respondent this was because of communal clashes which had broken out in the respondent's village. According to the appellant, the respondent had merely absconded because of a complaint fired by one of the ladies working in the appellant's units against the respondent. Whatever the truth, the fact remains that when, after the period of absence, the respondent sought to rejoin his duties, he was not allowed to do so by the appellant. 3. The respondent then filed a writ petition before the High Court at Madras on 16th September, 1986 in which he claimed inter alia that he had been wrongfully refused employment by the appellant when he sought to rejoin. By way of interim relief, he prayed that he should be permitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appointment would be considered on its own merits. The respondent's application for appointment was, however, rejected by the appellant. 6. The respondent then raised a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 challenging the termination or his service. In the counter statement filed by the appellant before the Labour Court, apart from countering the respondent's claim, the facts relating to the previous litigation initiated by the respondent were set out in detail. Despite noting the filing of the writ petition by the respondent and its dismissal, the Labour Court allowed the respondent's complaint holding that the respondent's services had been wrongfully terminated. The Labour Court accordingly directed the reinstat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s application was rejected by the High Court. The appellant has impugned the rejection of the writ appeal as well as the order rejecting its application for review by two separate special leave petitions. 8. Although the appellant had complied with the provisions of Section 17 B of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 since the Award of the Labour Court, the respondent was not reinstated nor were the directions of the High Court complied with. The contempt proceedings initiated by the respondent by reason thereof have been stayed by this Court. 9. Before us, The appellant has reiterated its stand before the High Court both on the question of res judicata as well as on merits. The respondent has on the other hand submitted that even if he was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise to two or more causes of action. If in such 3 case a person is allowed to choose and sue upon one cause of action at one time and to reserve the other for subsequent litigation, that would aggravate the burden of litigation. Courts have therefore treated such a course of action as an abuse of its process . (p.808) 11. The principle of res judicata operates on the Court, it is the Courts which are prohibited from trying the issue which was directly and substantially in issue in the earlier proceedings between the same parties, provided the Court trying the subsequent proceeding is satisfied that the earlier court was competent to dispose of the earlier proceedings and that the matter had been heard and finally decided by such Court. Here ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
