Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 854 (GUJ)

Alfa Engineering Co. v. Ibrahim V. Vora

2005-12-19

K.S.JHAVERI

body2005
JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. The petitioner Company has prayed to restrain the Labour Court, Baroda from entertaining the reference being Reference (LCV) No. 501 of 2001 and to declare the impugned Notice dated 19.06.2001 as without any jurisdiction and violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein, somewhere in the year 1996, preferred an application for reference alleging that the petitioner had illegally terminated his services. In pursuance of the said application, the Assistant Labour Commissioner made a reference u/s. 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court, Baroda for adjudicating the dispute in question, which was numbered as Reference (LCV) No. 908 of 1996. Pursuant to the above, the Labour Court issued Notice of hearing dated 09.12.1996 to both the parties. The Labour Court, by impugned award dated 06.10.2000 rejected the said reference preferred by the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent again made an application to the Assistant Labour Commissioner to refer the same dispute to the Labour Court, Baroda. The Assistant Labour Commissioner forwarded the said dispute to the Labour Court, Baroda for adjudication, which was numbered as Reference (LCV) No. 501 of 2001. Thereafter, the Labour Court issued notice of hearing to the petitioner on 19.01.2001. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid actions, the petitioner has preferred this petition before this Court. 2. Mr. Anup Krishnan learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the reference being Reference (LCV) No. 501 of 2001 in view of the fact that the said dispute between the parties was already adjudicated by the Labour Court in the earlier reference being Reference (LCV) No. 908 of 1996. Learned advocate has also produced on record the award passed by the Labour Court in the said reference being Reference (LCV) No. 908 of 1996 dated 06.10.2000. 3. While admitting the matter on 03.10.2001 this Court has stayed the proceedings in the reference being Reference (LCV) No. 501 of 2001 pending before the Labour Court, Baroda which was confirmed by order dated 19.10.2001. From the record, it transpires that the dispute between the parties was already adjudicated upon by the Labour Court, Baroda in the earlier proceedings being Reference (LCV) No. 908 of 1996 decided on 06.10.2000. From the record, it transpires that the dispute between the parties was already adjudicated upon by the Labour Court, Baroda in the earlier proceedings being Reference (LCV) No. 908 of 1996 decided on 06.10.2000. Once the dispute is already decided on merits by the Labour Court, Baroda, the Assistant Labour Commissioner ought not to have referred the same dispute again for adjudication. It appears that the Assistant Labour Commissioner has acted purely in a mechanical manner without ascertaining as to whether there exists any industrial dispute between the parties. The issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Workmen of the Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd., v. M/s. Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 1974 (28) FLR 357 , reported in (1974) 4 S.C.C. pg. 681, wherein it has been held that the principle of res judicata shall apply to industrial adjudication and that where a matter in dispute in a subsequent case had earlier been directly and substantially in issue between the same parties and the same had been heard and finally decided by the Tribunal will be of pertinent consideration and will have to be determined before holding in a particular case that the principles of res judicata are attracted. Similar view has been adopted by the Apex Court in a recent decision in the case of Executive Engineer, ZP Engg. Divn., & anr. v. Digambara Rao and others reported in (2004) 8 S.C.C. pg. 262. In that case, the respondents had raised a claim for regularisation before the High Court under Article 226 in which a subsidiary prayer was also made for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or for a direction not to discontinue their services. The Apex Court held that the regularisation claims had a direct nexus with the termination orders and, therefore, the proceedings initiated before the Labour Court challenging the said termination orders were barred under the principle of res judicata. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute once again since the same is barred under the principle of res judicata. Hence, the contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner is required to be accepted. 4. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute once again since the same is barred under the principle of res judicata. Hence, the contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner is required to be accepted. 4. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The Labour Court, Baroda is restrained from entertaining the reference being Reference (LCV) No. 501 of 2001 preferred by the respondent herein. Further, the Notice dated 19.06.2001 issued by the Labour Court fixing the date of hearing is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Petition Allowed.