Judgment :- (Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.4927 of 1996 dated 7.3.2002.) Markandey Katju, C.J. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 7.3.2002. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. The petitioner/appellant raised an industrial dispute alleging that he was appointed in 1965 as a temporary worker in the service of the Electricity Board at Cheyyar and he was transferred to Pallikonda construction work, where he continued to work till 1973. Since he was not made permanent he continued to work as a casual worker till the year 1974 and thereafter he was transferred to Cheyyar Construction division where he worked as a casual labourer till the year 1984 and from 1984 to 1989 he worked as a watchman in Vandavasi section. On 6.1.1989 when he went to work he was not given work and his service was terminated. The claim of the petitioner was disputed by the respondent Electricity Board on the ground that the petitioner was appointed only for a short period namely from 15.9.1971 to 31.12.1971 in Cheyyar Division. He was also engaged as a watchman only through a private detective agency and he was not working under the control of the respondent Electricity Board. Therefore, his claim that he was appointed by the Electricity Board till the year 1984 was denied by the respondent. 3. The Labour Court by its award dated 2.8.1995 held in paragraph 6 that the claim of the petitioner that he worked from 1965 is based on no evidence. There is also no evidence that he worked as an employee of the Board at any time after 1972. In fact he has sent a letter to the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Vellore in 1988 wherein he has clearly admitted that he was employed as a temporary casual labourer and his service was terminated from 4.2.1973. The petitioner was working only as a labourer under a private contractor namely M/s.Hindustan Security and Detective services. This is evidenced by Ex.M3 acquittance for payment of wages for December 1988. Thus the petitioner was working under a private contractor and was not an employee of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The petitioner was working only as a labourer under a private contractor namely M/s.Hindustan Security and Detective services. This is evidenced by Ex.M3 acquittance for payment of wages for December 1988. Thus the petitioner was working under a private contractor and was not an employee of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. It appears that he was taking small contracts from the Board but he was never employed by the Board. 4. In paragraph 7 of the award the Labour Court has held that the petitioner has come to Court after a lapse of nearly 23 years. He ceased to be a temporary casual labourer from 1972 and was never in the employment under the respondent. In view of this the Labour Court dismissed the claim of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner also filed a second writ petition in W.P.No.3860 of 1999 for a direction to the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to pass orders on the representation made by the petitioner on 16.4.1996, 27.7.1998 and 17.11.1998. In our opinion this second writ petition was not maintainable as it was barred by the principles of resjudicata/constructive resjudicata. The principle of resjudicata is based on sound public policy namely that there must be an end to a litigation. The principle of constructive resjudicata is also similar namely, that if any thing is pleaded and sought to be proved in the first litigation, it cannot be allowed to be pleaded and proved in a second round of litigation, otherwise there will be no end to a litigation. Thus, there is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed. No costs.