ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Yogada Satsang Mahavidyalaya, Ranchi. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 29.1.2010, passed by the Jharkhand Education Tribunal, Ranchi, (herein after referred to as the 'Tribunal'), in Case No.34 of 2009 (JET), whereby the application filed by the appellant challenging his termination of services from respondent college, has been dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has held that the matter of the appellant had been dismissed by the High Court in CWJC No.1544 of 1999 (R), L.P.A. No.539 of 2002 and finally in Civil Review No.2 of 2008. As such, the application of the petitioner was barred by the principles of res-judicata and / or constructive res-judicata, and could not be adjudicated by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also, by way of passing remarks, stated that the appellant had been chasing and struggling to regain his job since the year 1993, which was on temporary basis and not against any substantive vacancy, which was never confirmed. As such, all these 17 years since 1993 to 2009, he had wasted his time, money and energy. 3. The facts of this case lie in a short compass. The appellant was initially appointed on 11.9.1984 on provisional basis as a Library Book Sorter, in respondent Yogada Satsang College, Ranchi. On 30.5.1990, he applied for extra ordinary leave for six months without pay, which was allowed, but thereafter, in spite of several applications given by the appellant to allow him to join his service, he was not allowed to join the service. Ultimately, the appellant received a letter dated 8.11.1991 issued by the Secretary of the Yogada Satsang College, intimating him that he had been appointed for three months on a consolidated salary of Rs.900/-per month, and that appointment was also continued till 16.12.1993 with artificial breaks, and ultimately, by order dated 16.12.1993, he was informed by the Management of Yogda Satsang College, that his services were no longer required from 17.12.1993. 4. At the relevant time, an industrial dispute was raised and the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Ranchi, vide notification dated 13.11.1995, issued by the appropriate Government for adjudication on the following terms of reference:- “Whether the termination of services of Shri Sukumar Nath Jha, Library book sorter, Yogda Satsang College, Jagarnathpur, Ranchi, is proper and justified? 4. At the relevant time, an industrial dispute was raised and the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Ranchi, vide notification dated 13.11.1995, issued by the appropriate Government for adjudication on the following terms of reference:- “Whether the termination of services of Shri Sukumar Nath Jha, Library book sorter, Yogda Satsang College, Jagarnathpur, Ranchi, is proper and justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to? The said matter was adjudicated by the Labour Court, Ranchi, in Reference Case No.6 of 1995, and Award dated 16.10.1998 was passed in favour of the appellant, finding that the termination of the services of the appellant was not just and proper, and was void ab initio. The appellant was also given the benefit of reinstatement in service, with full back wages and all consequential benefits. 5. The Management of the respondent college challenged the aforesaid Award of the Labour Court, before this Court in C.W.J.C. No.1544 of 1999 (R), which was allowed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, by order dated 19.9.2002, finding that the educational institution was excluded from the definition of industry, under the Industrial Disputes Act, and as such, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the reference. Accordingly, the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court in favour of the appellant, was quashed by this Court. The appellant preferred LPA against the said order, being LPA No.539 of 2002, and this LPA was also dismissed by this Court by order dated 29.11.2007, against which, appellant also filed Civil Review No.2 of 2008, which was again dismissed by order dated 30.01.2009. 6. Thereafter the appellant moved before the Jharkhand Education Tribunal for Redressal of his grievances, in Case No.34 of 2009 (JET), and since the case was filed very belatedly, by order dated 5.9.2009 passed by the Tribunal, the limitation was condoned by the Tribunal, finding that there was no lacuna or lapses on part of the petitioner, rather he was involved in pursuing the matter in the Courts. 7. 7. However, when the matter was finally adjudicated by the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 29.01.2010, in the backdrop of the facts detailed above, the Tribunal has held that the matter of this appellant was barred by the principles of res-judicata / constructive res-judicata, as it had been previously adjudicated by the High Court in writ application, in LPA, and in civil review, and it shall not be appropriate for the Tribunal to re-adjudicate the matter. The Tribunal also gave the passing remarks as indicated above. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned Judgment passed by the Tribunal is absolutely illegal, and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, in as much as, the matter was not decided by the High Court on merits, rather the matter was decided on merits by the Labour Court and the adjudication was in favour of the appellant. Against that Award, the Management came to the High Court and the High Court, finding that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction, set-aside the Award, which was passed in favour of the appellant. The appellant preferred the LPA and the successive civil review, but was not successful therein, and thereafter, he moved before the Tribunal, which also, condoned the delay, taking into consideration the fact that the matter was being persuaded in the Courts. It is submitted by the learned counsel that there is no adjudication by the High Court on merits, rather it is only on the technical ground and the Award passed in favour of the appellant was quashed by the High Court. As such, the claim of the appellant was not at all barred by res-judicata / constructive res-judicata, as there was no adjudication on merits by High Court, and the Tribunal has committed a manifest error of law, holding that the matter was barred by res-judicata and / or constructive res-judicata. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent Management of the college has opposed the prayer, and has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgement passed by the Tribunal and the matter has also been decided by the High Court in writ application and the successive LPA and civil review. 10. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent Management of the college has opposed the prayer, and has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgement passed by the Tribunal and the matter has also been decided by the High Court in writ application and the successive LPA and civil review. 10. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that the finding given by the Tribunal that the matter of the appellant was barred by the principles of res-judicata / constructive res-judicata, is absolutely uncalled for and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The matter of the appellant was decided in his favour upon adjudication on merits by the Labour Court only, but the Award of the Labour Court was quashed by the High Court on the technical ground of jurisdiction. The appellant preferred LPA against the said order and the same was dismissed and the civil review was also dismissed. The High Court never entered into the merits of the claim of the appellant. Thus, no adjudication of the claim of the appellant on merits, survived in the eyes of law. The High Court had never adjudicated the claim of the appellant on merits. 11. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal has committed a manifest error on facts and in law, in holding that the dispute raised before the Tribunal had been previously adjudicated upon by the High Court, and thus, was barred by the principles of res-judicata / constructive res-judicata. The remarks made by the Tribunal that the appellant had been chasing and struggling to regain his job since the year 1993, which was on temporary basis and not against any substantive vacancy, which was never confirmed, and all these 17 years since 1993 to 2009, he had wasted his time, money and energy, are only a passing remarks, after giving the finding that the matter was barred by the principles of res-judicata / constructive res-judicata. I am of the considered view that the impugned Judgment passed by the Tribunal suffers with inherent illegality and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 12. I am of the considered view that the impugned Judgment passed by the Tribunal suffers with inherent illegality and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Judgment dated 29.01.2010, passed by the Jharkhand Education Tribunal, Ranchi, in case No.34 of 2009 (JET), is hereby, set-aside, and the matter is remanded back to the Jharkhand Education Tribunal, Ranchi, for fresh adjudication in the matter on merits, without being influenced / prejudiced by aforesaid passing remarks given by the Tribunal. 13. At this stage, this Court is informed that the appellant is at the verge of superannuation in less than two years’ time. As such, the Tribunal is directed to decide the matter on a priority basis. 14. This appeal is accordingly allowed, with the direction as above.