ORDER T.S. Misra, J. - By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Gonda the petitioner, seeks the quashing of an award dated 16-6-1978 made by the Labour Court, Gorakhpur. A copy of that award is Annexure No. 3 to the Writ Petition. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition are these : The petitioner is a Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. Nand Lal Misra the opposite party No. 3, was initially appointed in Balrampur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Balrampur, as a Cashier/Clerk vide order dated 24-12-1963. He was subsequently transferred to Colonelganj branch of the said Bank in the same capacity where he took over charge on 19-3-1964. The Manager of the Head Officer of the Bank and the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, Gonda made an inspection of the Colonelganj branch of the said Bankon 5-8-1965 and checked the cash which was found short to the tune of Rs. 4294.00. A charge sheet was served on Nand Lal Misra for the shortage in the cash under his charge by the Managing Director of Balrampur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Certain other charges were also levelled against him. A copy of that charge-sheet is Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. By a resolution dated 22-9-1965 the Board of Directors of the Bank appointed Sri Yar Mohammad Khan, a Director of the Board to conduct an inquiry against Nand Lal Misra. Sri Yar Mohammad Khan submitted his report on 16-10-1965 holding that Nand Lal Misra (hereinafter called the workman) was responsible for the embezzlement committed in the Bank along with Sri Saroj Kumar Srivastava. The Board of Directors then unanimously resolved to terminate the services of both the said employees. The workman made a mercy appeal to the Board of Directors who by their resolution dated 20-12-1965 resolved to revert him to the post of Godown Keeper. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, however, by his letter dated 24-7-1967 addressed to the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, Gonda, desired that the man of doubtful integrity should not be allowed to continue and, therefore, the services of Saroj Kumar and Nand Lal Misra, the workman, be terminated. The said letter was placed before the Board of Directors who resolved to terminate the services of Nand Lal Misra, the workman, and orders to that effect were accordingly issued. The said letter was placed before the Board of Directors who resolved to terminate the services of Nand Lal Misra, the workman, and orders to that effect were accordingly issued. The workman made an appeal to the Board of Directors but the same was dismissed. The U. P. Bank Employees Union Unit, Balrampur District Gonda espoused the claim of the workman and raised an industrial dispute. The Government referred that industrial dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Gorakhpur, vide notification No. 7993 (Shram-A)/36 Shram(K) 51-(GR)/68 dated December 3, 1970. The Labour Court made its award dated 17-6-1971 holding that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies had exercised his power under S. 38, U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, and the same was not barred by S. 70 of the said Act. The award was made against the workman. Feeling aggrieved by that award dated 7-6-1971 the workman Nand Lal Misra filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8241 of 1971. This Court by its judgment dated 5-5-1976 allowed the petition and quashed the said award of the Labour Court and directed the Labour Court to restore the case to its original number and decide the dispute in accordance with law. It was held by this Court that the direction given by the Registrar to terminate the employment of Nand Lal Misra could not be held to be a valid order or direction. The dispute was then again taken up for consideration by the Labour Court which made its award in favour of the workman holding that the termination of his services was illegal and unjustified and that he should be reinstated to his post and be paid his full wages from the date of the termination order to the date of his reinstatement. The petitioner being aggrieved by that award has filed the instant petition which has been opposed and a counter affidavit has been filed. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit in reply to the counter-affidavit. 3. For the petitioner it was urged that the Labour Court had failed to apply its mind while making the award against the petitioner and has acted mechanically in applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petn. No. 8241 of 1971. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit in reply to the counter-affidavit. 3. For the petitioner it was urged that the Labour Court had failed to apply its mind while making the award against the petitioner and has acted mechanically in applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petn. No. 8241 of 1971. It was submitted that this Court while interpreting the scope of S. 38, Co-operative Societies Act, in the said writ petition had not taken into consideration the effect of R. 22 of the Balrampur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Balrampur Services Rules, and it was not open to this Court to interpret the provision of S. 38 of the Cooperative Societies Act which did not suffer from any ambiguity. I find no force in this contention. In the said Writ Petition No. 8241 of 1971 the contention of the workman, as would appear from the judgment made in that case, was that the Registrar had the jurisdiction to direct the removal of a workman like Nand Lal Misra and the Society could not merely on that basis change the punishment from reversion to removal from service. The Society in that case had relied on S. 38 of the Act to justify its order. The Labour Court had held that S. 38, Co-operative Societies Act gave power to the Registrar to direct the removal and the Society was accordingly authorised and justified to pass the removal order. The contention of the petitioner in that case was that S. 38 of the said Act applied not to cases of paid servants of the Society but only to elected officers of the Society. This Court held that normally the master can terminate the services of its employee on the application of its own mind, without any thing particular to indicate that the section contemplates the removal of paid servants of the Society, it would be difficult to hold that S. 38 deals with the removal of every servant or officer of the Co-operative Society as it would be contrary to all principles governing master-servant relationship. It was hence held that the workman in question will not come in the category of such officer who acts or performs the functions similar to the functions of the Secretary and he was only one of the paid servants employed to assist in the business activity of the Society and was not clothed with any official responsibility to carry on the business of the Society. It was, therefore, held that the direction given by the Registrar could not be held to be a valid direction passed in exercise of its powers under S. 38 of the said Act. It was also held that S. 128 of the said Act was thus not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and hence the direction given by the Registrar could not be held to be a valid order or direction even by S. 128 of the Act. As the decision of the Labour Court was based primarily on its treating the direction given by the Registrar as valid and binding on the employer, the award was held to suffer from a manifest error of law; hence the said Award was quashed by this Court and the Labour Court was directed to restore the case to its original number and decide the dispute in accordance with law. 4. This Court has thus clearly held that S. 38 of the Act was not applicable and the direction of the Registrar requiring the employer to terminate the employment of Nand Lal Misra was invalid. That direction was also not covered by S. 128, Cooperative Societies Act. Since the case was sent back to the Labour Court for reconsideration of the Labour Court it held that the order terminating the employment was illegal. Its judgment was obviously based on the law laid down by this Court in the said Writ Petition No. 8241 of 1971. The decision rendered in the said writ petition is binding on the petitioner and it is not open to it to urge that the direction issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, to terminate the employment of Nand Lal Misra was given in exercise of the powers under S. 38 of the Act or that it was covered by S. 128 of the Act. M/s. Balrampur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Balrampur, District Gonda, was impleaded as opposite party 1, in the said Writ Petition No. 8241 of 1971. M/s. Balrampur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Balrampur, District Gonda, was impleaded as opposite party 1, in the said Writ Petition No. 8241 of 1971. It had contested that petition which was decided by this Court on merits. The name of Balrampur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Balrampur, District Gonda was subsequently changed to Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Gonda. This fact is admitted by the petitioner in para 29 of the instant writ petition. The petitioner by mere change of the cannot urge that the decision given in Writ Petition No. 8241 of 1971 is not binding on it. It cannot wriggle out of that judgment by merely adopting another name. It cannot hence be permitted to reagitate the points which have been decided finally between the parties in Writ Petition No. 8241 of 1971. It is by now settled law that the general principle of res judicata art-applicable to writ petitions also. Once the High Court decides a plea raised by a party in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by a speaking order the parties to the petition would not be entitled to re-agitate the same point which may affect the finality of the earlier order nor can they be permitted to circumvent the said judgment by successive writ petitions more particularly when there is identity of cause of action. The mere addition of a new party or adopting a different name by any of the parties or adding a new ground which might and ought to have been raised in earlier petition but was not raised will not exclude the operation of the principle of res judicata (See AIR 1965 SC 1150 , Devilal Modi v. Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam, AIR 1964 SC 1013 , Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. v. Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara and AIR 1961 SC 1457 , Daryao v. State of U.P. In the Writ Petition No. 8241 of 1971 between the parties, it was contested that the direction of the Registrar that the services of Nand Lal Misra be terminated was made in exercise of the powers under S. 38 of the Co-operative Societies Act as also under S. 128 of the Act. This Court rejected the contention and held that neither S. 38 of the Act nor S. 128 of the Act applied to the case and the direction given by the Registrar was invalid. This Court rejected the contention and held that neither S. 38 of the Act nor S. 128 of the Act applied to the case and the direction given by the Registrar was invalid. The present petitioner has once again submitted that S. 38 of the said Act gave power to the Registrar Co-operative Societies, to make that direction. It has also been urged on behalf of the petitioner that this Court while interpreting the scope of S. 38 of the Act lost sight of R. 22, Balrampur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Balrampur Service Rules and that the term "any officer of a Cooperative Society" under S. 38 clearly included the workman being employed by the Co-operative Society by virtue of S. 2 (o) of the Co-operative Societies Act. All these pleas cannot now be permitted to be raised by the petitioner in the instant case. Section 38 of the Act came up for consideration in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 8241 of 1971 and the binding effect of the decision made in that case cannot be taken away merely because R. 22 of the Balrampur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Balrampur Service Rules was not taken into consideration by the Court. The question that the action could be taken in view of the R. 22 aforesaid which though open was not raised in the earlier writ petition cannot be raised in the instant writ petition. The scope of S. 2 (o), Co-operative Societies Act was considered by this Court in the aforesaid earlier writ petition between the parties. The petitioner cannot hence be permitted to raise these points over again. The view which I have taken finds support from the decision in the case of T. Govindraja Mudaliar v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 SC 974 wherein the validity of Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was impugned. The validity of the said Chapter was upheld in all previous decisions. It was hence held that their binding effect cannot be taken away merely because aspect based on guarantee under Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution was not expressly, considered. It was pointed out that the question regarding validity of Chapter IV-A on ground of infringement of Article 19 (1) (f) which though open was not raised in earlier writ petitions cannot be raised in subsequent writ petitions. It was pointed out that the question regarding validity of Chapter IV-A on ground of infringement of Article 19 (1) (f) which though open was not raised in earlier writ petitions cannot be raised in subsequent writ petitions. The Labour Court had hence rightly held that the order of the Registrar directing the termination of the employment of Nand Lal Misra was illegal and invalid. The Labour Court reached this conclusion after referring to the order of this Court passed in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 8241 of 1971 and it would be wrong to. say that the Labour Court did not apply its mind while making its Award. In fact the Labour Court was bound to apply the law laid down by this Court and which was equally binding on the parties to the dispute. 5. It was next urged on behalf of the petitioner that as the name of the Balrampur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Balrampur, District Gonda, was changed to Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Gonda the Labour Court should have sent back the reference to the State Government for amendment instead of making the Award. There is no merit in this contention. Rule 14 of the Labour Court (Gorakhpur) Rules of Procedure, 1949, would not apply to a case where the employer merely changes its name. It was not the case of one management succeeding another management or one Society succeeding another Society. The assets and liabilities continued to be owned by the same body. Merely the name was changed and by mere change of the name of the' Society the liabilities could not be altered. The Labour Court was, therefore, not obliged to send back the case to the State Government for amending the reference. 6. Lastly, it was urged that the Labour Court should have taken into consideration the fact that the workman was employed during the period of his termination earning a salary; hence he should not have been held to be entitled to the salary for the period he was employed elsewhere. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 3 it has been said that the workman concerned had worked in Balrampur Estate on a salary of Rs. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 3 it has been said that the workman concerned had worked in Balrampur Estate on a salary of Rs. 100.00 per month for a period of few months in the year 1968 and thereafter he had been unemployed, except for short spells of employment in the Balrampur Sugar Factory' in the year 1971. The Balrampur Sugar Factory employs seasonal workers only during crushing season which varies from 2 to 4 months in a year. The workman concerned was employed there for short spells as seasonal worker and the total employment since the year 1971 did not exceed more than four months on an average in a year. The workman Nand Lal Misra was removed from service on 29-8-1967 and was rendered unemployed. For his survival as also for the survival of his family members he could get a job in Balrampur Estate for a few months in the year 1968 on a salary of Rs. 100.00 per month. Then again he remained unemployed during the years 1969 and 1970. He also remained unemployed during the year 1971 except during the crushing season for a short period when he was employed by the Balrampur Sugar Factory as a seasonal worker. This aspect of the matter was placed before the Labour Court and in the interests of social justice it had awarded full wages to the workman from the date of termination of his employment till the date of his reinstatement. There was nothing wrong in awarding full wages on the facts of the instant case when the workman concerned remained unemployed for almost the whole period except for a few months. The Award cannot be held to be invalid on this ground. 7. No other point was pressed before me. 8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.