ORDER This writ application has been filed seeking implementation of an award dated 05.08.2011 passed in Reference case No. 2/2010 by the Industrial Tribunal, Patna on reference made by the State Government in respect of certain dispute over actual date of retirement of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner claims to have been appointed on the post of Mali in Patna Municipal Corporation on 09.02.1984. He is said to have submitted a school leaving certificate indicating his date of birth as 24.11.1957. However, it is the petitioner’s case that all of a sudden, memo No. 1631dated 18.12.2007 was issued by the Chief Executive Officer of Patna Municipal Corporation and he was being made to retire w.e.f. 30.11.2007, treating his date of birth to be 24.11.1947. 3. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a writ application before this court vide CWJC No. 4769/2008, which was permitted to be withdrawn by an order dated 05.09.2008. It is indicated at the very beginning that there is no pleading in the present writ application that the petitioner had earlier approached this court by filing CWJC No. 4769/2008, which was withdrawn by the said order dated 05.09.2008. In the said writ application, the petitioner had raised the same grievance regarding wrong entry of his date of birth and action of the respondents asking him to retire w.e.f. 30.11.2007. It appears that petitioner had approached the authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act and a conciliation proceeding was also conducted in the court of Deputy Labour Commissioner, Patna. From the letter dated 14.09.2009 issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum- Conciliation Officer, Patna, addressed to the Principal Secretary, Labour Department, Government of Bihar it appears that the Patna Municipal Corporation was represented in the conciliation proceeding and a plea was taken that the petitioner had approached this court for the same purpose. Conciliation proceeding was, therefore, kept in abeyance for some time awaiting decision of this court. As has been indicated above, the writ application was permitted to be withdrawn and dismissed accordingly vide order dated 05.09.2008. From the said order dated 14.09.2009, it will appear that the petitioner informed the Conciliation officer that he withdrew the writ application at the behest of Patna Municipal Corporation. As has been indicated above, the writ application was permitted to be withdrawn and dismissed accordingly vide order dated 05.09.2008. From the said order dated 14.09.2009, it will appear that the petitioner informed the Conciliation officer that he withdrew the writ application at the behest of Patna Municipal Corporation. Subsequently, by a notification dated 15.02.2010 issued by the Labour Resources Department, Government of Bihar, a reference was made under section 10(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act to Industrial Tribunal, Patna referring the following dispute:- “Whether Retirement from 30.11.2007 of Shri Ramnandan Prasad, Mali by Letter No.- 1631 Dated-18-12-2007 of Patna Nagar Nigam Patna is justified? If not, what relief workman is entitled to?” 4. Finally the award in reference case No. 2/2010 came to be passed on 05.08.2011 which reads as follows:- “Thus there is evidence that date of birth of the workman Ramnandan Prasad is 24.11.1957 and he has been wrongly retired w.e.f. 30.11.2007 treating 24.11.1947 as his date of birth. In the result it is adjudicated that the retirement of Shri Ramnandan Prasad, workman w.e.f. 30.11.2007 vide letter No. 1631 dated 18.12.2007 of Patna Nagar Nigam is not justified. He will be treated in continuous service of Patna Nagar Nigam as if he did not retire on 30.11.2007 and will be paid full back wages. Patna Nagar Nigam is directed to take back him in service and make full payment of back wages within 30 days pronouncement of the award. And this is my Award.” 5. The petitioner has now approached this court with a grievance that the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Patna by which the date of birth of the petitioner has been found to be 24.11.1957 is not being implemented by the Patna Municipal Corporation. By the said award, the retirement of the petitioner w.e.f. 30.11.2007 has been held to be unjustified and the Tribunal in its award has ordered to treat the petitioner in continuous service of the Patna Municipal Corporation as if he did not retire on 30.11.2007 and he would be paid full back wages. 6. The award of the Industrial Tribunal is ex parte. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent-Patna Municipal Corporation denying the claim of the petitioner. 6. The award of the Industrial Tribunal is ex parte. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent-Patna Municipal Corporation denying the claim of the petitioner. The respondents have also raised a plea that the petitioner had earlier approached this court by filing CWJC No. 4769 of 2008 against the same order dated 18.12.2007 by which he was being made to retire treating his date of birth to be 24.11.1957 and, therefore, the second writ application is barred by res judicata. It has been specifically stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner’s date of birth as recorded in his service book is 24.11.1947 and even in the present certificate issued by Sardar Patel High School, Mithapur, Patna his date of birth has been mentioned as 24.11.1947. It has also been stated that a list of employees of the Corporation, whose services were confirmed, was issued by the Corporation and there also the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 24.11.1947. Annexure-E, which contains the information for the purpose of grant of Assured Career Progression, has also been brought on record along with counter affidavit in which the petitioner’s date of birth has been mentioned as 24.11.1947. Annexure-E contains signature of the petitioner also. It has further been stated in paragraph 12 of the writ application that the Corporation is not an industry within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act and the Tribunal did not have any jurisdiction to deal with the dispute involved in the present case. The respondents have also contended that the Industrial Tribunal, Patna passed the award ex parte as the Corporation could not appear before the Tribunal. In course of argument, learned counsel for the Corporation has submitted that the Corporation had no notice/ information about the reference case. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply to the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Corporation over maintainability of the writ application, contends that the petitioner had earlier approached this court for quashing of an order passed by the Corporation whereby the petitioner was being made to retire w.e.f. 30.11.2007 whereas the present writ application has been filed for implementation of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and he, accordingly, submits that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. 9. On a query made by this court as to why the petitioner suppressed the fact that he had earlier approached this court by filing CWJC No. 4769 of 2008, which was permitted to be withdrawn by an order dated 05.09.2008, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this would not amount to suppression of material fact as this fact is mentioned in the order of Conciliation officer dated 14.09.2009. He has also contended that since the fact does not go to the root of the matter, non disclosure of this fact, therefore, would not amount to suppression of material fact. 10. To overcome the curiosity as to how the award was passed ex parte, this court had requested learned counsel for the State to produce the original records of Reference Case No. 2/2010. The records were accordingly produced. 11. I have perused the records of the said Reference Case No. 2 of 2010. 12. On consideration of pleadings in the writ application and the counter affidavit as well as records of the Reference Case No. 2/2010 the following aspects emerged for consideration:- (i) Whether non disclosure of the order of this court dated 05.09.2008 passed in CWJC No. 4769/2008 in the pleadings of the writ application amounts to suppression and concealment of material facts? (ii) What would be the effect of withdrawal of CWJC No. 4769 of 2008 without any liberty to move other forum? (iii) Whether the award which the petitioner seeks to be implemented by an order of this court under writ jurisdiction can be said to have been obtained by playing fraud? 13. Considering the second aspect first, I am of the view that the law is well settled. The Supreme Court in the case of Sarguja Transport vs. T.A. Tribunal reported in (1987) 1 SCC 5 held that withdrawal of a writ application would be a bar for filing subsequent writ application. This is to be noted that the petitioner, while withdrawing the said writ application, did not seek any liberty to file a petition before any other court or Tribunal for redressal of the grievance raised in the writ application. 14. In such circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioner could not have pursued his remedy before the Industrial Tribunal after having withdrawn the writ application from this court without obtaining any liberty to do so. 14. In such circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioner could not have pursued his remedy before the Industrial Tribunal after having withdrawn the writ application from this court without obtaining any liberty to do so. The conduct of the petitioner to have withdrawn the writ application after having felt that he would not be getting any relief from this court and thereafter pursuing his remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act is certainly deplorable. 15. As regards third aspect; I have perused the records of Reference Case No. 2/2010. There is an order dated 19.02.2010 which reads thus:- “Register: Issue Regd. Notice to the parties directing them to file their written statement, if any by 17.03.2010. Direct them also to file names of their representatives in Form E prescribed under Rule 34 of the Bihar Industrial Rules, 1961 on the date fixed.” 16. There is absolutely nothing on record to show whether any notice was sent to the Corporation through registered post. There is no noting as regards actual service of notice upon the Patna Municipal Corporation pursuant to order dated 19.02.2010. It appears that the Presiding Officer did not wait for ensuring service of notice. The entire proceeding before the Industrial Tribunal proceeded ex parte. This is unthinkable for this court to appreciate the circumstance in which the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna proceeded without report of service of notice upon the respondents. Such award in my opinion has thus been obtained by committing fraud and it is collusive award. 17. As regards first aspect, as to whether the petitioner has suppressed material fact in the pleadings of writ application by not disclosing that he had earlier approached this court being aggrieved by memo No. 1631 dated 18.12.2007 by which he was made to retire w.e.f. 30.11.2007 and he subsequently withdrew the writ application, this is to be noted that after withdrawal of the writ application the reference under section 10(2A) of the Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947 was made to the Industrial Tribunal and the dispute was of the same nature, i.e., whether the decision of the Corporation as contained in memo No. 1631 dated 18.12.07 to retire the petitioner w.e.f. 30.11.2007 was justified or not. 18. This fact, in my view, was a vital fact which was required to be stated in the writ application itself in all fairness. 18. This fact, in my view, was a vital fact which was required to be stated in the writ application itself in all fairness. It is true that reference of the said writ application and the order permitting withdrawal is there in the order dated 14.09.2009 passed by the Conciliation Officer but the contents of the said order are important and were required to be mentioned in the writ application itself by way of pleadings. In the said order dated 14.09.2009 passed by the Conciliation Officer, it has been mentioned, at the instance of the petitioner, that the said writ application was withdrawn as suggested by the Patna Municipal Corporation which was not a fact. There is no such recital in the order of this court dated 05.09.2008 passed in CWJC No. 4769 of 2008. 19. What the petitioner has done in the present case can be termed as “forum hunting”. He approached this court challenging the decision of the Corporation as contained in memo No. 1631 dated 18.12.2007 by which he was being made to retire w.e.f. 30.11.2007. When he found himself not succeeding before this court he withdrew the writ application and failed to get liberty to approach any other forum for the same relief. Thereafter, he pursued the matter before the Industrial Tribunal and in course of conciliation he took a plea that he withdrew the writ application as suggested by the Patna Municipal Corporation, which is not evident from the order of this court. Taking all these facts together, this court is simply shocked and surprised as to why the Industrial Tribunal in the reference case, without ensuring that notices were served upon the management passed the award ex parte. After the award having been passed, now the petitioner seeks a direction from this court to enforce the said award and at the same time makes an attempt to conceal the fact that he had earlier approached this court by filing a writ application, which was withdrawn without any liberty. This fact could emerge only after counter affidavit was filed by the respondent- Corporation bringing on record the said order of this court. Conduct of the petitioner is highly reprehensible. 20. I find accordingly no merit in this writ application and it is, accordingly, dismissed but without any costs. Let original record of Reference case No. 2/2010 be returned to learned counsel for the State.