9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se concerns the service benefits claimed by the third respondent, the High Court is requested to dispose of the writ petition as early as possible - Civil Appeal No. 1257 of 1985 - - - Dated:- 13-8-1986 - Judge(s) : M. M. DUTT., V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI M.K. Banerjee, Solicitor-General (D.N. Misra, B.D. Bharucha and A.M. Dittia, Advocates, with him), for the appellant. M.K. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (Mrs. Gyan Sudha Mishra, Advocate, with him), for the respondents. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by BALAKRISHNA ERADI J.- The short question that arises for decision in this appeal by special leave is whether the dismissal in limine of a special leave petition filed before this court by a party challenging the award of Labour Court would preclude the said party from subsequently approaching the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution seeking to set aside the said award. Having regard to the nature of the question arising for determination, it is not necessary for us to set out in detail the facts of the case and brief narration thereof would suffice. Respondent No. 3 was appointed in 1963 as a sales officer in the service of the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 2770 of 1984) filed by the appellant against the award of the Labour Court, it was not legally open to the appellant thereafter to approach the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution challenging the very same award. This court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the special leave petition, filed by the third respondent by the following order dated August 17, 1984: " Special leave petition is dismissed. We hope that the High Court will dispose of the writ petition as expeditiously as possible preferably within four months from today. In the meantime, the respondents will deposit in the High Court a further sum of Rs. 10,000 (apart from Rs. 5,000 which has already been deposited towards the cost of the petition) within two weeks from today, which amount the petitioner will be at liberty to withdraw in case the writ petition is not disposed of within four months from today.. " Subsequently, when the writ petition came up for final hearing before a Division Bench of the High Court, the third respondent again urged the aforesaid contention as a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition. That contention was upheld by the Division Bench which too ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er on the principle of res judicata nor on any principle of public policy analogous thereto, would the order of this court dismissing the special leave petition operate to bar the trial of identical issues in a separate proceeding, namely, the writ proceeding before the High Court merely on the basis of an uncertain assumption that the issues must have been decided by this court at least by implication. It is not correct or safe to extend the principle of res judicata or constructive res judicata to such an extent so as to found it on mere guesswork. This enunciation of the legal position has been reiterated by this court in Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen [1981] 58 FJR 294 (SC). The principles laid down in the two decisions cited above fully govern the present case. It is not the policy of this court to entertain special leave petitions and grant leave under article 136 of the Constitution save in those cases where some substantial question of law of general or public importance is involved or there is manifest injustice resulting from the impugned order or judgment. The dismissal of a special leave petition in limine by non-speaking order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the facts of the particular case are not suitable as a foundation for determining some question of general principle. Your Lordships' House is only able, in any given year, to hear and determine a limited number of cases and it is important for the evolution of the law as a whole that those cases should be carefully chosen. Conversely, the fact that leave to appeal is given is not by itself an indication that the judgments below are thought to be wrong. It may well be that leave is given in order that the relevant law may be authoritatively restated in clearer terms. It is not difficult to find in the books examples of cases where, after leave to appeal has been refused in one case, another case will later arise in which leave to appeal has been given as a result of which the decision against which leave to appeal was originally refused, is shown to have been wrong. But that of itself does not mean that the initial refusal of leave was wrong." Thus, the correct legal position is that the dismissal by this court of Special Leave Petition No. 9147 of 1983 by the non-speaking order of this court dated September 9, 1983, did not operate as a bar against the appellant in the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
