JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — This writ application has been filed chal¬lenging the order dated 28.6.1999 passed by the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act holding that the proceed¬ing is not barred under the principles of res judicata and for a declaration that opposite parties 2 to 166 are not entitled to any further amount what has been computed as gratuity payable to them. 2. The case of the petitioner is that Steel Authority of India has framed the Rules called ‘SAIL Gratuity Rules’ with the approval of the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 8th August, 1978. These Rules apply to all the employees, whether executive or non-executive. The amount of gratuity payable to an employee is provided in Clause 3.2.1 of the Gratuity Rules. Opposite parties 2 to 166 were members of Rourkela Steel Plant Executive Association which is affiliated to Steel Executive Federation of India (‘SEFI’, for short). The SEFI had filed a writ application in Delhi High Court (C.W.P. No. 486 of 1995) challenging the validity of the provisions of the SAIL Gratuity Rules and prayed for a direction to apply the said Rules to the executives as are applicable to non-executives by removing the ceiling prescribed under the Payment of Gratuity Act and Payment of Gratuity Rules. The said writ application was dismissed by the Delhi High Court on 13.9.1996. On the very same ground applications were filed before the Competent Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act by the opposite parties 2 to 166. The petitioner filed its objection before the Competent Authority challenging the maintainability of the proceeding on the ground that the very same grievance has been decided by Delhi High Court and therefore, the proceeding was no more maintainable and hit by the principles of res judicata. Since the Controlling Authority refused to pass order, the petitioner approached this Court in OJC No. 1076 of 1999 and No. 5998 of 1999. This Court disposed of OJC No. 1076 of 1999 on 12th May, 1999 directing the Controlling Authority to decide the question of maintainability first by a speaking order and further directed that till the question of maintainability is decided, the matter shall not proceed further before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) who is the Controlling Authority. This Court disposed of OJC No. 1076 of 1999 on 12th May, 1999 directing the Controlling Authority to decide the question of maintainability first by a speaking order and further directed that till the question of maintainability is decided, the matter shall not proceed further before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) who is the Controlling Authority. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court notices were issued in all the cases by the Controlling Authority and the matter was heard. After hearing the parties, the impugned order was passed holding that the proceeding is not barred by the principles of res judicata and such allegations were maintainable. The said order is challenged before this Court in this writ application. 3. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Jagannath Patnaik appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of Delhi High Court which has been annexed to this writ application. Shri Patnaik submitted that the claim of the peti¬tioner in the present proceeding before the Controlling Authority was also the claim before Delhi High Court and after hearing the parties, the Delhi High Court rejected the claim of the petition¬ers therein and therefore, once the question has been decided by a competent Court of law, the same cannot be raised again. Since the association of opposite parties 2 to 166 is affiliated to the SEFI, it is deemed that the said opposite parties were also represented through SEFI before the Delhi High Court and therefore, the judgment delivered by Delhi High Court shall operate as res judicata. 4. Shri S.K.Sanganeria appearing for the aforesaid opposite parties has filed a counter and submitted that the principles of res judicata are not applicable to the facts of the present case. He further submitted that not only the prayers made in the writ application filed before the Delhi High Court are different from the prayer made by the present opposite parties 2 to 166 before the Controlling Authority but also these opposite parties were not parties before the Delhi High Court. 5. He further submitted that not only the prayers made in the writ application filed before the Delhi High Court are different from the prayer made by the present opposite parties 2 to 166 before the Controlling Authority but also these opposite parties were not parties before the Delhi High Court. 5. In the impugned order the Controlling Authority has held as follows : “In the present application the applicant filed under Sec. 7(4)(b) of the Act for adjudication and determination of the amount to which he is entitled to under Payment of Gratuity Act since the management/Opposite party has not noticed him under Sec. 7(2) of the Act and under Rule 8 of the Rules. The issue in Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the issue in the present proceeding are directly and substantially are different issues and the present application filed by the applicant requires adjudication and determination. Accordingly I held that the present proceeding is not barred under the Principle of res judicata. As such it is ordered that the application filed by the opposite party dated 30.11.1998 is not maintainable and rejected in the facts and circumstances of the case.” Sec. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes : “No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigat¬ing under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subse¬quent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court. xx xx xx” The provision clearly envisages that (i) the issue in the former suit must be the same in the issue in the subsequent suit, (ii) the parties must be the same in both the suits; and (iii) the former suit must have been heard and finally decided by the Court where the former suit was filed. Coming to the first question whether the issues were same or not, it is necessary to look into the prayers made before the Delhi High Court. Coming to the first question whether the issues were same or not, it is necessary to look into the prayers made before the Delhi High Court. The following prayers had been made before the Delhi High Court in the aforesaid writ application : “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to : (a) declare that the Steel Authority of India Ltd. Gratuity Rules in so far as they make a distinction between Executive and Non-Executive cadre employees are unconstitutional. (b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution directing the respondent not to discriminate between the Gratuity payable to Executive and Non-Executive cadre employees and to apply the same Rules to Executives as are applicable to non-Executives. (c) issue Rule NISI in terms of prayers (a) and (b) made herei¬nabove. (d) pass any other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.” The prayers made in the application before the Controlling Authority were as follows : “The applicant was an employee of the above mentioned em¬ployer and is entitled to payment of Gratuity under Sec. 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 on account of his own superan¬nuation on 30.9.1995 after completion of 29 years 8 months and 12 years of continuous service. The wages last drawn by the appli¬cant was Rs. 15,500/-. Thus the applicant is entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 3,00,617.30 towards payment of gratuity. But the Management of Rourkela Steel Plant has paid only Rs. 1.00 lakh as gratuity on the day of his retirement.” A bare perusal of the prayers made in the writ application filed before Delhi High Court as well as in the application filed by the present opposite parties 2 to 166 it appears that the prayers are different and therefore, it cannot be said that the issue in the writ application filed by SEFI before Delhi High Court is same as issue involved in the present proceeding pending before the Controlling Authority. There is also no material before this Court to show that SEFI had taken consent of the present opposite parties 2 to 166 for filing the aforesaid writ application before the Delhi High Court on behalf of the association of the present opposite parties 2 to 166. There is also no material before this Court to show that SEFI had taken consent of the present opposite parties 2 to 166 for filing the aforesaid writ application before the Delhi High Court on behalf of the association of the present opposite parties 2 to 166. Merely because the association of the opposite parties 2 to 166 is affiliated to SEFI, it cannot be said that the acts of SEFI are also the acts of the present association. Under the circumstances I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Controlling Authority. However, it is observed that while dispos¬ing of the proceeding, opposite party No. 1 shall consider the applicability of the judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court to the claim of the present opposite parties 2 to 166. The writ application is otherwise devoid of any merit and is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. Application disposed of.