SARVA SHRAMIK SANGH versus INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 6 S.C.R. 39 · Decided: 13-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
1. 
' , 
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 39 
SARVA SHRAMIK SANGH 
v. 
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2423 of 2009) 
APRIL 13, 2009 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH 
PANTA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Res judicata: When the parties are different, issues are 
different, reliefs are different, the question of either res C 
judicata, or finality of proceedings, acquiescence or estoppel 
would not arise - On facts, worker union representing the 
canteen workers of the contractor engaged by company for 
running its canteen filed first writ petition seeking abolition of 
~ 
contract labour system which was dismissed for want to 
D 
prosecution - Second writ petition filed for making reference 
under s. 10 to industrial tribunal to decide whether the contract 
between company and canteen contractor was sham -
Dismissed on the ground that petitioner was estopped from 
taking different stand in subsequent writ petition - Held: High 
E 
Court erred in assuming that appellant had taken inconsistent 
stands in the two writ petitions - Since the prayer in writ petition 
1 
for abolition of contract labour was rejected, they could then 
seek relief under Industrial Disputes Act - The contention of 
company that on account of the dismissal of the first petition, 
F 
the second petition for a different relief was barred either by 
principle of res judicata or by principle of estoppel is liable to 
be rejected -
Central Government is directed to take an 
appropriate decision on the request for reference of the 
dispute to Industrial adjudicator - Contract Labour (Regulation 
G 
.-. 
and Abolition) Act, 1970- s.10- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 
- s.10(1)(c). 
Plea -
Inconsistent pleas taken by a party -
Permissibility - Held: It is impermissible to take inconsistent 
39 
H 
40 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 
A plea by way of amendment thereby denying the other side, 
r 
the benefit of an admission contained in the earlier pleading 
- Mutually repugnant and contradictory pleas, destructive of 
each. other may also not be permitted to be urged 
simultaneously by a plaintiff/petitioner - But when there Is no 
B Inconsistency In the facts alleged, party Is not prohibited from 
taking eltemstlve pleas available In law - Similarly, on the 
same facts, different or altemstlve reliefs can also be claimed. 
ThE1 appellant union represent the canteen workers 
c of the contractor engaged by IOC for running Its canteen. 
It filed first writ petition in High Court seeking direction 
-. 
to hold an investigation under Section 10 of the Contract 
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and make an 
order abolishing the contract labour system in regard to 
workmE!n in the canteen of IOC and a direction to IOC to 
D absorb/regularize the services of the said workers. The 
writ petition was dismissed for want to prosecution. 
Thereafter, the appellant filed second writ petition 
contending that the contracts between IOC and the 
E canteen contractor was sham and bogus and seeking a 
direction to Union of India to make a reference of the 
' 
dispute, raised by them in regard to the demand for 
permanency of the canteen workers to the tribunal. The 
High Court disposed of the said writ petition with a 
.. 
F direction to the Central Government to consider and 
/ 
' 
dispose of the request for reference with a further 
direction to maintain status quo in regard to concerned 
workmen till disposal of the reference application. 
Pursuant thereto, conciliation proceedings were held, 
G which failed. The Government was of the view that the 
dispute, prima facie, was not fit for adjudication, as the 
~ 
workmen in respect of whom the dispute was raised were 
not appointed by the management of IOC but were 
engaged by the contractor holding a valid and legal 
H contract. 
SARVA SHRAMIK SANGH v. INDIAN OIL 
41 
CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. 
,( 
The appellant filed writ petition seeking a mandamus A 
i 
,to Government of India to refer the dispute raised, to the 
' 
'tribunal for adjudication. High Court dismissed the writ 
petition on the ground that the first writ petition for 
abolition of contract labour in the canteen in the 
establishment of IOC, was dismissed for non-prosecution B 
and attained finality and once having sought the relief of 
abolition of contract labour, the appellant was estopped 
from seeking any other relief by contending that the 
contract was sham and not genuine. 
The question for consideration in present appeal was c 
whether 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.