JUDGMENT : Bobde S.A., J. Heard. Admit. Taken up for final hearing by consent of the parties. 2. This appeal is against the judgment of the learned Single Judge holding that Complaint ULP No. 357/1994 filed by Respondent Sukhdeo Ramchandra Dhakite, complaining illegal punishment having been imposed on him, will have to be tried even though in another Complaint ULP No. 442/1996 between the same parties, status of Sukhdeo on the same post of Divisional Accountant had been gone into and it has been found that he is not a workman. While Sukhdeo was working as Divisional Accountant at Nagpur, he preferred a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act bearing ULP No. 442/1996 before the Industrial Court, Nagpur (hereinafter described as 'the Nagpur complaint) complaining that the punishment of reversion imposed on him was illegal. In the Nagpur complaint, the Appellants before us, raised a dispute that Sukhdeo is not a workman. This issue was enquired into in detail by the Industrial Court which, upon consideration of the entire law on the subject and with a well reasoned order, came to the conclusion that the nature of duties performed by Sukhdeo as Divisional Accountant show that he was not a workman. In particular, the Industrial Court held that Sukhdeo, as a Divisional Accountant, was called upon to maintain monthly, quarterly, half yearly and yearly statements and cash budget. He was required to check the bills and other statements prepared by the L.D.C., U.D.C. and a Divisional Accountant. Under the powers delegated by the Board he was empowered to write annual confidential reports of sub-ordinate cadres covering Class-III and Class-IV categories. The Industrial Court further noticed that the post on which Sukhdeo was working had the powers to audit the bills to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000/- and he had to prepare budget etc. Accordingly, the Court found that the functions of the post of Divisional Accountant are supervisory in nature and hence Sukhdeo, being a Divisional Accountant, was not a workman. The Present Dispute : 3. It appears that Sukhdeo had filed another complaint while he was at Gadchiroli on the same post, which has given rise to the present dispute. That complaint being ULP No. 357/1994 had not been decided when the aforesaid complaint No. 442/1996 was decided. The Present Dispute : 3. It appears that Sukhdeo had filed another complaint while he was at Gadchiroli on the same post, which has given rise to the present dispute. That complaint being ULP No. 357/1994 had not been decided when the aforesaid complaint No. 442/1996 was decided. In this complaint, which was pending, the Appellants herein filed an application for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it has already been held in complaint ULP No. 442/1996 that while Sukhdeo was working at Nagpur on the post of Divisional Accountant it has been held that the Divisional Accountant is not a workman. This application was, however, dismissed by the learned Industrial Court on the ground that the preliminary issues will have to be framed and decided in this case also. Accordingly, the Industrial Court refused to dismiss the complaint. Against the said order, the Appellants approached the learned Single Judge of this Court, who agreed that the nature of the duties performed by Sukdheo as Divisional Accountant, Nagpur had already been decided and the nature of duties, which may have been performed by him when he was functioning as Divisional Accountant At Gadchiroli, would have to be gone into and that the employer would have to lead proper evidence to show that the facts considered in Complaint ULP No. 442/1996 were not different. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellants. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. Mohogaonkar, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, submitted that the post on which Sukhdeo was working at Nagpur when Complaint ULP No. 442/1996 was filed and the post on which Sukhdeo was working at Gadchiroli, when Complaint ULP No. 357/1994 was filed is the same i.e. Divisional Accountant. Indeed, according to the learned Counsel, the said posts are the same throughout the MSEB. Since the matter has been gone into in detail and it has been found that the duties of the post of Divisional Accountant are such that the incumbent cannot be held to be a workman, there is no reason for the Court to go through the same exercise only because the other complaint namely ULP No. 357/1994 was filed in relation to the same post at Gadchiroli. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Mohokar, the learned Counsel for the Sukhdeo, on the other hand, submitted that the nature of duties are different in that while Sukhdeo was working at Gadchiroli, which is the subject-matter of Complaint ULP No. 357/1994, he did not have to perform certain administrative duties, which he had to perform at Nagpur when Complaint No. 442/1996 was filed. Further, according to the learned Counsel for the Respondent, at Nagpur the powers of audit were on higher side in comparison to the powers of audit at Gadchiroli. 6. We see no merit in the contention raised by learned Counsel for Respondent. No difference is pointed out between the nature of duties of the same post at different places. On the other hand, it appears from paragraph 11 of the order of the Industrial Court in Complaint ULP No. 442/1996 that pertaining to the duties performed at Nagpur Sukhdco had admitted in his complaint that when he was working at Gadchiroli as Divisional Accountant, the posts viz. Lower Divisional Clerk, Upper Divisional Clerk, Cashier, Assistant Accountant were under him and further while working in the Division Office posts of L.D.C., U.D.C., Cashier, Assistant Accountant were treated sub-ordinates to him because they prepare bills, keep records of revenue etc. It is obvious that these are the essential duties of the Divisional Assistant. Certainly, these duties were attached to the said post at Gadchiroli also and it is not Sukhdeo's case that those duties were absent at Nagpur. Applying the principle that the issue; whether a person is Workman or not; has to be decided on the true nature of the dominant duties and since the dominant duties have been held to be supervisory in the said post at Nagpur and since it has been brought in evidence that such duties were also attached to the post of Divisional Accountant when he was working at Gadchiroli, we see no reason why the matter should be tried again. It is also settled law, vide The Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. R.S. Bhatia (Dead) through Lrs., (1975) 4 SCC 696 , that in the subsequent proceedings between the same parties an issue already decided must be taken barred by principle of res judicata. In that case, it was found that the issue; whether Respondent was working or not; had already been decided earlier. The Supreme Court observed as follows: 5. R.S. Bhatia (Dead) through Lrs., (1975) 4 SCC 696 , that in the subsequent proceedings between the same parties an issue already decided must be taken barred by principle of res judicata. In that case, it was found that the issue; whether Respondent was working or not; had already been decided earlier. The Supreme Court observed as follows: 5. ...A decision given by the competent Labour Court in that regard has rightly been held as a bar on the principles of res judicata in the trial of the same issue in the present proceeding. Moreover, we find that even apart from the previous order operating as res judicata, practically there was no evidence on behalf of the Appellant in support of its case that the Respondent was not a workman. 7. In this view of the matter, judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The application of the Appellants for dismissal of the complaint at Exh.-23 before the Industrial Court in Complaint ULP No. 357/1994 is allowed. Order accordingly. At this stage, Mr. Mohokar, the learned Counsel for the Respondent, prays for continuation of interim order dated 17.3.1998 passed by Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur. However, we do not consider it appropriate to do so. That interim order was made because no written statement was filed and the Industrial Court considered it appropriate to stay the recovery on the basis that Sukhdeo was still in service. That is not the situation now. Admittedly, Sukhdeo has already retired from service. Hence, prayer for continuation of the interim relief is rejected.