Judgment :- K.K. Sasidharan, J. These two writ appeals are directed against the order dated 09.10.2009 in W.P.No.8471/2009 whereby and whereunder the communication issued by the Bharath Sancham Nigam Limited (BSNL, for short), rejecting the request of the first respondent to recognize them as the Union to deal with matters of local interest as a representative union of BSNL, was set aside. W.A.No.1723/2009 Background facts:- 2. Appellant is a Government of India enterprise and it came into existence on 01.10.2000. There are several member unions representing the interest of the employees of BSNL. Management of BSNL convened a meeting of all the trade unions on 27.02.2001 and representatives from Ministry of Labour were also present in the said meeting and a decision was taken that a verification for electing Majority representative Union would be held through Secret Ballot and that Trade Union which observe Code of Discipline would only be entitled for participation in the verification process. According to the Code of Discipline, a union which gets majority votes subject to a minimum of 15% of votes would be eligible for recognition at the All India level. Similarly, a union which gets 50% of votes in the circle would have the right to deal with matters of local interest, such as handling of grievances pertaining to its own members. 3. The appellants in W.A.No.491/2010 and the first respondent are registered trade unions representing the employees of BSNL. 4. In accordance with the decision taken by BSNL to conduct a verification process for electing majority representative union, election was held on 21.01.2009. The employees of 35 Telecom circles throughout India took part in the said election. Votes were counted on 23.01.2009 and results were declared on 24.01.2009. BSNL Employees Union, appellant in W.A.No.491/2010, secured maximum number of votes and therefore, the said union was declared as majority representative union by BSNL as per notification dated 27.01.2009. National Federation of Telecom Employees, the respondent, approached the management with a request to give second recognition to them in 10 Telecom Circles in which it got the majority votes. BSNL as per their letter dated 12.02.2009, informed the first respondent that they did not get 50% or more votes in the circle and as such, it was not possible to recognize them as a union to represent the local interest. BSNL as per their letter dated 12.02.2009, informed the first respondent that they did not get 50% or more votes in the circle and as such, it was not possible to recognize them as a union to represent the local interest. According to the first respondent, BSNL was not justified in taking 50% of the total polled votes as eligibility criteria. Since the first respondent obtained majority out of total valid votes, they claimed that they should have been declared as the majority union at the local level. The said contention was not accepted by BSNL and they have issued a communication dated 17.12.2009 informing the first respondent of their inability to recognize them. Feeling aggrieved, the first respondent filed the writ petition in W.P.No.8471/2009. 5. Before the learned single Judge, the first respondent contended that they obtained more than 50% of the total polled votes and as such, BSNL was not correct in denying them the right to represent the workers at the local level. The appellant contended that in case the union gets more than 50% of the total votes polled, they could be recognized as authorized union to represent the local interest and not otherwise. 6. The learned single Judge was of the view that the requirement of obtaining 50% of the votes has to be read as 50% of the total polled votes. According to the learned single Judge, in the event of none of the unions securing 50% of the votes, there would be no union to represent the local interest. Therefore, the learned Judge arrived at a conclusion that it was only 50% of the votes polled and not 50% of the votes which gives right of representation at the local level. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. 7. The said order is challenged in W.A.No.1793/2009 and 491/2010 at the instance of BSNL and BSNL Employees Union respectively. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant in both the writ appeals contended that single union in the industry was the rule and the representation of local interest by another union was an exception and as such, any union claiming representation at the local level should obtain 50% of the total membership. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant in both the writ appeals contended that single union in the industry was the rule and the representation of local interest by another union was an exception and as such, any union claiming representation at the local level should obtain 50% of the total membership. According to the learned counsel, the first respondent was not in a position to obtain 50% of the total polled votes and as such, it cannot be said that they represent more than 50% of the employees at the local level. The learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.491/2010 took an objection that the very issue was decided earlier by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in O.W.P.No.19/2005 and as such, it was not open to the first respondent to rake up the issue once again before another High Court. Analysis:- 9. BSNL adopted a code of discipline for recognition of Trade Unions. Annexure-I attached to the Code of Discipline provides that in case there are more than one union, a union claiming recognition should have been functioning for at least one year after registration. It also contains a provision that if a union of workers in a particular establishment has a membership of 50% or more of the workers of that establishment, it should have the right to deal with matters of purely local interest. 10. There was a meeting convened by BSNL on 28.09.2001 which was attended by unions desirous of participating in the verification process for recognition of majority union. In the said meeting, it was resolved that only one majority union would be recognized after membership verification and they should get a minimum of 15% of votes. It was also decided that if a participating union is able to get 50% or more membership at the unit (Circle) level, it would have the right to deal with matters of purely local interest of its own members at the Circle/SSA level. However, it was further indicated that the participation at local level would be in addition to the circle level organization of the recognized union. The circle unit of the recognized union would be the main union in all the circles. 11. Subsequently, BSNL conducted a verification process to recognize the majority union as well as to select the union at the circle level to deal with matters of purely local interest. The circle unit of the recognized union would be the main union in all the circles. 11. Subsequently, BSNL conducted a verification process to recognize the majority union as well as to select the union at the circle level to deal with matters of purely local interest. Election was conducted smoothly and it was found that the appellant in W.A.No.491/2010 obtained majority votes and as such, the said Union was declared as the recognized union as per notification dated 27.01.2009. Though the first respondent obtained 50% of the total polled votes, they were not recognized as the union to represent the local interest. This made them to file the writ petition. 12. The substantial question involved in this matter is as to whether it was 50% or more votes; or 50% of polledvotes, which should be taken into consideration for deciding the eligibility to become a union to represent the local interest. 13. The Code of Discipline and the resolutions taken at the meeting of BSNL and the union gives a clear indication that they have adopted “one industry, one union” principle. Therefore, it was the unanimous decision of the employer and the employees to treat the majority union as the organization to represent the interest of the workers. By way of concession, it was also provided that if a participating union is able to get 50% or more membership at the union (Circle) level, it would have the right to deal with matters of purely local interest of its own members. It was also indicated in the resolution that such selection of union at the local level would be in addition to the circle level organization of the recognized union. It was also clarified that the circle unit of the recognized union would be the main union in all the circles. 14. The first respondent was a party to the deliberations and a signatory to the subsequent decision. 15. Therefore, the first respondent was well aware that only in case they were in a position to get 50% or more membership of the union they would get the right to deal with matters of local interest of its members. Since it was only a concession inasmuch as the decision was only to have one union at the industry level, the first respondent was expected to fulfil the eligibility criteria. Since it was only a concession inasmuch as the decision was only to have one union at the industry level, the first respondent was expected to fulfil the eligibility criteria. The first respondent obtained less than 50% of the total polled votes. The Code of Discipline as well as the minutes of the meeting held on 28.09.2001 clearly shows that in case a particular union seeks representation at the local level, they should obtain 50% or more membership at the unit level. This gives an indication that the 50% should be of the membership and not the polled votes. 16. The decision by the BSNL, taken in consultation with Ministry of Labour and the Unions that a participating union must obtain more than 50% of the total membership to represent the local interest, was with a view to permit such union to deal with matters of purely local interest of its own members. However, the fact remains that majority union still continue to be only the recognized union at the national level. It is also open to such majority union to represent the members in all the circles. 17. The learned Judge proceeded on the basis that in case none of the unions were in a position to get 50% of the total number of votes, there would be nobody to represent the local interest. This finding has no basis inasmuch as the Code of Discipline as well as the criteria of recognition of unions gives a clear indication that in the event of none of the participatory unions obtaining more than 50% of the total votes at the local level, the employees would be represented by the majority union at the national level. It is not as if the Trade unions were not aware of the actual meaning of the term “50% of the total membership”. The term “total membership” cannot be construed to be as “50% of the total polled votes”. This term has no relationship with the polled votes. This is evident by the fact that representation by another union at the local level was in addition to the representation of employees by a single majority union at the national level. The term “total membership” cannot be construed to be as “50% of the total polled votes”. This term has no relationship with the polled votes. This is evident by the fact that representation by another union at the local level was in addition to the representation of employees by a single majority union at the national level. In the light of the decision of BSNL for only one union to represent the interest of all the workers, it would be clear that it was nothing but a concession given to the unions to represent local interest, in case they would be in a position to command the confidence of more than 50% of the employees. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the reasoning given by the learned single Judge. Res Judicata:- 18. The appellant in W.A.No.491/2010 has taken up a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition. According to the appellant, the very same issue was agitated before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in O.W.P.No.19/2005 and the High Court negatived the contention raised by the first respondent. Therefore, it was not open to the first respondent to agitate the very same issue in a subsequent writ petition. 19. The first respondent earlier filed a writ petition before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in O.W.P.No.19/2005. The issue involved in the said writ petition was also the question as to whether 50% or more membership has to be considered to be one of 50% or more of the total polled votes. The said contention was answered against the first respondent by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. The High Court found that the first respondent secured less than 50% of the votes but they were able to get 50% of the polled votes. The High Court categorically held that it was only 50% or more of the membership and not the votes polled. The said decision was rendered in a writ petition between BSNL and the first respondent. The learned single Judge rejected the contention regarding res judicata on the ground that the object of holding secret ballot were not argued before the Court and the High Court had no occasion to consider the issue in the light of the said fact. 20. With respect, we are unable to agree with the views expressed by the learned single Judge. 21. 20. With respect, we are unable to agree with the views expressed by the learned single Judge. 21. The parties to the writ petition before the Jammu and Kashmir was BSNL and the first respondent, and the issue regarding 50% or more of the total number of votes was raised at the instance of the first respondent. The issue was answered by the High Court against the first respondent. Therefore, there was a valid decision which would bind BSNL as well as the first respondent. It was not the case of the first respondent that Jammu and Kashmir High Court has no jurisdiction to decide the issue. In fact, it was only the first respondent who approached the said High Court for a decision as to whether 50% has to be considered as a particular percentage of the total votes or total polled votes. When there is a binding judgment involving the parties, it is not open to them to re-agitata the same issue once again before another forum. 22. It is true that the judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has got only persuasive value insofar as this High Court is concerned. However, that does not mean that the judgment has no binding effect on the parties to the litigation before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court. Both BSNL and the first respondent are bound by the said Judgment and as such, neither of them could re-agitate the same issue before another High Court. The Legal Principles:- 23. The supreme Court in S. Nagaraj v. B.R. Vasudeva Murthy, (2010) 3 SCC 353 = 2010(2) Scale 232, observed that the principle of per incurium has relevance to the doctrine of precedents but has no application to the doctrine of res judicata. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court quoted with approval the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Tarini Charan Bhattacharjee and others vs. Kedar Nath Haldar (AIR 1928 Calcutta 777):- “The High Court has failed to appreciate that the principle of per incuriam has relevance to the doctrine of precedents but has not application to the doctrine of res judicata. To quota Rankin, C.J. of the Calcutta High Court in Tarini Charan Bhattacharjee v. Kedar Nath Haldar: “(1) The question whether decision is correct or erroneous has no bearing upon the question whether it operates or does not operate as res judicata. To quota Rankin, C.J. of the Calcutta High Court in Tarini Charan Bhattacharjee v. Kedar Nath Haldar: “(1) The question whether decision is correct or erroneous has no bearing upon the question whether it operates or does not operate as res judicata. The doctrine is that in certain circumstances the court shall not try a suit or issue but shall deal with the matter on the footing that it is a matter no longer open to contest by reason of a previous decision. In these circumstances it must necessarily be wrong for a court to try the suit or issue, come to its own conclusion thereon, consider whether the previous decision is right and give effect to it or not according as it conceives the previous decision to be right or wrong. To say, as a result of such disorderly procedure, that the previous decision was wrong and that it was wrong on a point of law, or on a pure point of law, and that therefore it may be disregarded, is an indefensible form of reasoning. For this purpose, it is not true that a point of law is always open to a party.” 24. In Pondicherry Khadi & Village Industries Board v. P. Kulothangan, (2004) 1 SCC 68 , the Supreme Court indicated that in case the Court was competent to dispose of the earlier proceedings and that the matter had been heard and finally decided by such Court, res judicata would come into effect. The observation reads thus:- “11. The principles of res judicata operates on the court. It is the courts which are prohibited from trying the issue which was directly and substantially in issue in the earlier proceedings between the same parties, provided the court trying the subsequent proceeding is satisfied that the earlier court was competent to dispose of the earlier proceedings and that the matter had been heard and finally decided by such court. Here the parties to the writ petition filed by the respondent in the Madras High Court and the industrial dispute were the same. The cause of action in both was the refusal of the appellant to allow the respondent to rejoin service. The Madras High Court was competent to decide the issue which it did with a reasoned order on merits and after a contested hearing. The cause of action in both was the refusal of the appellant to allow the respondent to rejoin service. The Madras High Court was competent to decide the issue which it did with a reasoned order on merits and after a contested hearing. This was not a case where the earlier proceedings had been disposed of on any technical ground as was the case in Workmen v. Board of Trustees of the Cochin Port Trust and Pujari Bai v. Madan Gopal. The “lesser relief” of reinstatement which was the subject-matter of the industrial dispute had already been claimed by the respondent in the writ petition. This was refused by the High Court. The correctness of the decision in the writ proceedings has not been challenged by the respondent. The decision was, therefore, final. Having got an adverse order in the writ petition, it was not open to the respondent to reagitate the issue before the Labour Court and the Labour Court was incompetent to entertain the dispute raised by the respondent and redecide the matter in the face of the earlier decision of the High Court in the writ proceedings.” 25. In S. Nagaraj v. B.R. Vasudeva Murthy, (2010) 3 SCC 353 = 2010 (2) Scale 232, cited supra, the Supreme Court held that even where a fresh cause of action arises, the issue between the parties which have been decided cannot be reopened. The Supreme Court observed thus:- “68. Mr Dave, however, is right in his submission that res judicata will not operate as a bar for entertaining a fresh cause of action and in the present case the Order dated 22-12-2003 passed by the Minister, Revenue, Government of Karnataka, gave rise to a fresh cause of action. But even where a fresh cause of action arises, issues between the parties which have been decided cannot be reopened before the court for fresh adjudication between the same parties. 69. In State of Haryana v. M.P. Mohla cited by Mr. Dave, this Court has held: “22. … The dispute between the parties has to be decided in accordance with law. What, however cannot be denied or disputed is that a dispute between the parties once adjudicated must reach its logical conclusion. 69. In State of Haryana v. M.P. Mohla cited by Mr. Dave, this Court has held: “22. … The dispute between the parties has to be decided in accordance with law. What, however cannot be denied or disputed is that a dispute between the parties once adjudicated must reach its logical conclusion. If a specific question which was not raised and which had not been decided by the High Court the same would not debar a party to agitate the same at an appropriate stage, subject, of course, to the applicability of principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata. 26. The provision regarding a second union at the local level was made only to facilitate the members of the union at the local level to redress their grievances through the said union. The code of discipline was very specific when it provided that such a local unit should have the confidence of 50% of more of the total membership. 27. the code discipline as well as the minutes of the subsequent decisions clearly gives an idea that for all purposes, it is only the recognized union who shall represent the employees before the administration. The question of allowing the second union to represent the local interest would arise only in case the said union was able to get more than 50% of the membership. Admittedly, the first respondent did not get 50% of the total votes and as such, it was not open to them to claim that they should be permitted to represent the local interest before BSNL. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned single Judge was not justified in quashing the impugned order. 28. In the result, the order dated 09.10.2009 in W.P.No.8471/2009 is set aside. The writ appeals are allowed. No costs.