ORDER : The management of the petitioner’s company, in these petitions has called in question the judgment and award dated 01.09.2018 made by the Principal Labour Court, Bengaluru in Industrial Disputes No.31/2016 at Annexure-A, whereby the termination of the services of the respondent-workman is set aside with a direction to reinstate him with all consequential benefits, service and monetary. 2. The respondent-workman being the Caveator is represented by his counsel Shri P.H. Virupakshaiah. 3. Though the matters are posted for admission, the same being in a narrow compass of law and facts, is taken up for hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned Senior Advocate Shri S.S. Naganand appearing for the counsel for the petitioners on record submits that the respondent was appointed to the post of Co-ordinator having been sent by M/s. Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation Limited, a manpower supply agency for the implementation of ‘Restructured Accelerated Power Development and Reforms Programme’; later he was entrusted with the work of Personal Secretary to the Director of the petitioner-company; the services of the petitioner came to be dispensed with from 13.06.2016. 5. The learned Senior Counsel Shri Naganand further submits that the action of the petitioner-company in dispensing with the services as above was put in challenge by the respondent in W.P.35897/2016 (S-Res) and the same came to be negatived by this Court vide judgment dated 07.09.2016. That being so, the same operates as res judicata and therefore the impugned award for reinstatement with all consequential benefits could not have been made at all. 6. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent workman submits that the cause of action on which his Writ Petition No.35897/2016 was founded, was totally different that in his Industrial Dispute No.31/2016; the writ petition was on the basis of the principles that obtain in the realm of service jurisprudence whereas the industrial dispute is on the principles enacted in the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore nothing decided in the writ petition could come in the way of his prosecuting the industrial dispute, more particularly, when he has put in a long length of continuous service having been duly appointed. Therefore he seeks dismissal of the writ petitions. 7. I have heard the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners and the learned advocate for the respondent workman. I have perused the case papers. 8. Therefore he seeks dismissal of the writ petitions. 7. I have heard the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners and the learned advocate for the respondent workman. I have perused the case papers. 8. The contention of the petitioner-management that the respondent had fought his first legal battle through the aforesaid writ petition although unsuccessfully was on the fact matrix now readjudicated by the Labour Court is evident from the judgment of this Court dated 07.09.2016 in W.P.No.35897/2016 and the impugned award. This Court at paragraph 5 of its judgment observed as under: “5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for both sides, I find that petitioner has no right to continue in the post in question as the post of coordinator is no longer in existence upon the expiry of the scheme namely ‘R-APDRP’. Insofar as the post of personal secretary to the Director (Finance) is concerned, it is the specific stand of respondents that no such sanctioned post of personal secretary is available and the petitioner has no right to continue in the said post for which a temporary arrangement was made. There is also nothing to show that 1st respondent has acted in an arbitrary manner to replace the services of petitioner by appointing another temporary employee of his choice for the post of personal secretary. As these allegations are unfounded and not supported by any material on record and as no temporary employee is sought to be replaced by appointing another temporary employee as urged by petitioner, there is no merit in this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed”. 9. In the aforesaid writ petition, the respondent herein had fought the case of his termination from service on merits and suffered the order. This Court in the said writ petition has specifically upheld the termination of respondent’s services on merits observing that the same cannot be found fault with. The findings recorded in a writ proceeding operate as res judicata, needs no authority. 10. This Court in the said writ petition has specifically upheld the termination of respondent’s services on merits observing that the same cannot be found fault with. The findings recorded in a writ proceeding operate as res judicata, needs no authority. 10. The judgment in the earlier writ petition shows that the respondent had fought the legal battle on the fact matrix that his was a Service Law Dispute and that he having suffered the order with no liberty reserved to reagitate the lis before another Forum, could not have raised the industrial dispute at all, more particularly, when this Court had found him lacking the right to continue in employment of the petitioner-company. The reasoning of the Labour Court in the impugned award runs repugnant to this, although the cause of action and the reliefs sought for are almost identical. Thus the impugned award could not have been made. Countenancing an argument to the contrary would amount to subjecting the Writ Court to the supervision of/ by the Labour Court. 11. The ratio of the decisions relied upon by the Labour Court in the cases i.e, JASMER SINGH vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER (2015) 4 SCC 458 ; MADHYAMIK SHIKSHA PARISHAD vs. ANIL KUMAR MISHRA AND OTHERS (2005) 5 SCC 122; STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. SURESH KUMAR VERMA (1996) 1 SCR 972 ; and KURUKSHETHRA UNIVERSITY vs. PRITHVI SINGH 2018 LLR 371 could not have been invoked in the fact matrix of the industrial dispute which culminated into the impugned award, inasmuch as this Court in the earlier writ petition has recorded a finding that the respondent herein has no right to continue in employment of the petitioner company. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned judgment and award dated 01.09.2018 made by the Principal Labour Court, Bangalore, in I.D.No.31/2016 and the claim petition filed by the respondent stands dismissed. Costs made easy.