AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—The petitioner was employed as a Driver in the Kothaeudem Depot of APSRTC. He was removed from service on June 1, 2002, on disciplinary grounds. After exhausting the departmental remedies, he approached the Labour Court, by filing I.D. No. 129/2002, in the Labour Court, Warangal. The ID was dismissed for default on September 20, 2004. The award, in turn, was published on January 3, 2005.
The petitioner filed I.A. No. 247/2004, under Order IX Rule IX C.P.C., on December 23, 2004. The Labour Court dismissed the LA., on October 6, 2005, on the ground that it is not accompanied by an application to condone the delay. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.D. (SR) No. 3197/2007, against the order of dismissal from service. The Labour Court passed an order dated November 26, 2007, dismissing the said unregistered I.D. This writ petition is filed, assailing the order, dated October 6, 2005, passed in I.A. No. 247/2004, as well as the one, dated November 26, 2007, dismissing the unregistered I.D.
Heard Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. P. Rajani Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner remained absent, when I.D. No. 129/2002 was called on September 20, 2004. Therefore, the Labour Court dismissed the same, for default. His efforts to get the I.D. restored, by filing LA. No. 247/2004, under Rule 9 of Order 9 C.P.C., were not successful.
The petitioner presented a fresh I.D., u/s 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Applying the principle of res judicata, the Labour Court rejected the I.D, through its order dated November 26, 2007.
The petitioner now pursued his remedy, more against the order dated November 26, 2007, rejecting the second I.D., than the rejection of I.A. No. 247/2004.
The question as to whether the dismissal of I.D., for default, and an order not passed on merits, would operate as res judicata, or would bar a subsequent industrial dispute, was dealt with by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Virendra Bhandari Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Others, . In that case, it was a reference u/s 10 of the Act. The Labour Court dismissed the reference, on the ground that the parties were not present. Subsequently, the appropriate Government made a reference, u/s 10, for the second time, on the same dispute. The Labour Court refused to entertain the second reference, on the ground that it is barred by res judicata. The Supreme Court took the view that, as long as an adjudication, on merits, was not rendered by an Industrial Dispute, the subsequent reference is not barred. While the subject matter of the case before the Supreme Court was a reference u/s 10, in the instant case, it is a dispute raised u/s 2-A(2). There does not exist any qualitative difference, in these two categories of cases. But for amendment to Section 2, even a dispute, in relation to removal or dismissal of an employee, were to have been the subject matter of a reference, u/s 10.
Following the judgment of the Supreme Court, the writ petition is allowed, and order dated November 26, 2007, passed in I.D. (sr) No. 3197/2007, is set aside. The Labour Court is directed to register the I.D, and dispose of the same, on merits, after giving opportunity to the parties. There shall be no order as to costs.