PONDICHERRY KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD versus P. KULOTHANGAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 62 · Decided: 31-10-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PONDICHERRY KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD 
v. 
P. KULOTHANGAN AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 31, 2003 
B 
[RUMA PAL AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
Labour Court-Principle of res judicata-Applicability of-Temporary 
C employee-Absented from duty-Not allowed to continue on work-Writ petition 
and writ appeal by employee dismissed-Thereafter employee raising industrial 
dispute-labour Court directing his reinstatement-Held, industrial dispute 
raised by employee after having got an adverse order in writ proceedings was 
barred by principles of res judicata-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 
D II. 
The respondent, a temporary employee, after having remained 
absent for sometime, sought to rejoin his duties, but the appe!lant-
employer did not allow him to do so. His writ petition before the Single 
Judge of the High Court for a direction to the appellant to take him back 
E on the work as also for regularisation of his services was dismissed. The 
writ appeal filed by him was also rejected. Thereafter, the respondent 
raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, which inspite of the 
fact of the earlier litigation having been brought to its notice, directed his 
reinstatement. The award of the Labour Court was unsuccessfully 
F challenged before the Single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High 
Court. The plea of the employer that since the issue had already been 
decided by the High Court in earlier writ proceedings, its fresh 
adjudication by the Labour Court was barred by the principle of res 
judicata, was not accepted. Aggrieved, the employer filed the present 
appeals. 
G 
H 
It was contended for the respondent that the principle of res judicata 
was not applicable as the issue raised in the earlier writ petition was one 
of regularization and not of reinstatement. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
62 
PON DIC HERRY KHADI AND VI LL. INDUS. BOARD v. P KULOTHANGAN 
63 
HELD: 1.1. The industrial dispute pertained to the same subject A 
matter dealt with in the earlier writ proceedings and was barred by the 
principles of res judicata. In view of s.I 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908, the High Court erred in upholding the award of the Labour Court. 
(66-D; 67-E) 
Workmen v. Straw Board Mfg. Co., AIR (1974) SC 1132 and State of B 
U.P. v. Nawab Hussain, (1977) 2 SCC 806, relied on. 
1.2. 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, C 
provided the court trying the subsequent proceeding is satisfied that the 
earlier court was competent to dispose of the proceedings and that the 
matter had been heard and finally decided by such court. [66-G; 67-A) 
1.3. In the instant case, parties to the writ petition filed by the 
respondent in the High Court as also the industrial dispute were the same. D 
The cause of action in both was the refusal of the appellant to allow the 
respondent to rejoin service. The High Court was competent to decide the 
issue which it did with a reasoned order on the merits and after a contested 
hearing. The "lesser relief' of reinstatement which was the subject matter 
of the industrial dispute had already been claimed by the respondent in E 
the writ petition. This was refused by the High Court. The correctness of 
the decision in the writ proceedings was not challenged by the respondent. 
The decision, was, therefore, final. Having got an adverse order in the 
writ proceedings, it was not open to the respondent to re-agitate the issue 
before the Labour Court and the Labour Court was incompetent to 
entertain the dispute raised by the respondent and re-decide the matter 
in the face of the earlier decision of the High Court. [67-A-DI 
Workmen of Cochin Port Trust v. Board of Trustees of the Cochin Port 
Trust and Anr., (1978) 3 SCC 119 and Smt. Pujari Bai v. Madan Gopal (dead) 
L. rs. AIR, [ 1989) SC 1764, distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8537 of2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.9.2001 of the Madras High 
Court in W.A. No. 1541 of 1997. 
WITH 
F 
G 
H 
64 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
C.A. No. 8538 of 2003 
T.L. Viswanath Iyer and V.G. Pragasam for the Appellants. 
K. Ram Kumar and B. Sridhar for the Respondents. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RUMA PAL, J. Leave granted. The respondent was appointed in 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.