Judgment:
Garg, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and award did, 5.3.90 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur by which the order dtd. 12.12.82 passed by the respondent No. 2 by which services of the petitioner were terminated was set aside and he was further ordered to be reinstated in service, but on back wages, he was given only Rs. 5000/- and in this writ petition the order by which he was given Rs. 5000/-as back wages has been challenged.
2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under :
(i) That the petitioner was conductor in the employment of respondent No. 2 (Divisional Manager, RSRTC, Udaipur and respondent No. 3 RSRTC, Jaipur. The petitioner's services were terminated on 12.12.82. Against the termination of his services, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the State of Rajasthan was pleased to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur (respondent No. 1) to the effect whether order of termination of services of the petitioner dtd. 12.12.82 was valid and proper or not.
(ii) That the Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur (respondent No. 1) through judgment and award dtd. 5.3.90 answered that the order of termination of services of the petitioner dtd. 12.12.82 was not valid and, therefore, the petitioner was reinstated in service, but on back wages, he was given only Rs. 5000/-. This part of order by which the petitioner was given Rs. 5000/- only as back wages has been challenged in this case, and the case of the petitioner is that he should have been given full back wages or atleast 50% of back wages. Hence, this writ petition with the abovementioned prayed.
3. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and their case is that the impugned judgment and award dtd. 5.3.90 (Annex. 1) passed by the IndustrialTribunal, Udaipur is perfectly in accordance with law and apart from this, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that before filing the present writ petition, a writ petition was filed by the present respondents against the judgment and awarded dtd. 5.3.90 (Annex. 1) and in that writ petition, notice was given to the petitioner and his counsel appeared in this Court and this Court through order dtd. 5.12.91 (Annex. R/2) dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondents and judgment and award dtd. 5.3.90 (Annex. 1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur (respondent No. 1) was upheld and when this being the position, the second writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and it should be dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability.
4. Heard and perused the record.
5. That this Court while deciding the writ petition No. 4356/90 filed by the present respondents against the judgment and award dtd. 5.3.90 (Annex. 1) passed the following order:
'It has been recorded by the learned Member, Tribunal that the department representative himself has confessed that inspite of writing the Headquarter for sending the original record, but the record has not been tracted. Therefore, there was no option left with the learned Member, Tribunal but to proceed with the matter on the basis of the record available with it.
Thus, in this view of the matter, I do not find any error committed by the member Tribunal so as to warrant interference by this Court.
There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.
6. It may be stated here that in the earlier writ petition No. 4356/90 filed by the present respondents No. 2 and 3, Mr. N.M. Lodha appeared for the present petitioner and that writ petition was decided on merits by this Court through order dtd. 5.12.91 (Annex. R/2).
7. The pertinent question which arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances just mentioned above, the present writ petition is maintainable or not when the earlier writ petition No. 4356/90 against the same judgment and award dtd. 5.3.90 (Annex. 1) was dismissed by this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the present petitioner.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Burn & Co. v. Their Employees (1), has held as under:
'.....That would be contrary to the well-recognised principle that a decision once rendered by a competent authority on a matter in issue between the parties after a full enquiry should not be permitted to be re-agitated. It is on this principle that the rule of res judicata enacted in Section 11, Civil P.C. is based. That section, is no doubt in terms inapplicable to the present matter, but the principle underlying it expressed in the maxim 'interest rei publicae ut sit finis litium', is founded on sound public policy and is of universal application... 'The rule of res judicata is dictated'..... 'by a wisdom which is for all time.'
And there are good reasons why this principle should be applicable to the decisions of Industrial Tribunal also....'
9. Similar view has been taken in the case of Workman of the Straw Board . v. Straw Board . (2), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
'.....It is now well established that, although the entire Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to industrial adjudication, the principles of res judicata laid down under Section 11 of the Code of CivilProcedure, however, are applicable, wherever possible, for very good reasons. This is so since multiplicity of litigation and agitation and re-agitation of the same dispute at issue between the same employer and his employees will not be conducive to industrial peace which is the principal object of all labour legislation bearing on industrial adjudication...'
10. Similar view has been reiterated in the case of Workman of Cochin Port Trust v. The Board of Trustees of the Cochin Port Trust and Another (3).
Principle of Constructive Res Judicata
Thus, from the aforesaid discussions, it can be concluded that if decision is given on merits, rule of constructive res Judicata will be applicable to bar second writ petition founded on the same cause of action. In this respect following authorities of Hon'ble Supreme Court may also be referred to:
(1) G.K. Dudani and Ors. v. S.D. Sharma and Ors. (4).@IN = (II). The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officer's Association and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (5).
11. In my opinion also, the second writ petition is not maintainable because of the simple reason that if second writ petition is found maintainable, it would render the order of the same Court dismissing the earlier writ petition redundant and nugatory. Further more, it would result in giving full scope and encouragement to an unscrupulous litigant to abuse the process of the High Court exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in that any order of any Bench of such Court refusing to entertain a writ petition could be ignored by him with impugnity and the relief sought in the same matter by filing a fresh writ petition. This would only lead to introduction of disorder, confusion and chaos relating to exercise of writ jurisdiction of Judges of the High Court, for there could be no finality for an order of the Court refusing to entertain a writ petition. It is why the rule of judicial practice and procedure that a second writ petition shall not be entertained by the High Court on the subject matter respecting that the writ petition of the same person was dismissed by the same court even if the order of such dismissal was in limine, be it on the ground of laches or on the ground of non-exhaustion of alternative remedy, has come to be accepted and followed as salutory rule in exercise of writ jurisdiction of the Court.
12. Thus, in view of above, the present second writ petition is not maintainable at all and deserves to be dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that a liberty be given to the petitioner to file special appeal before Division Bench against the judgment dtd. 5.12.91 (Annex. R/2). In my opinion this is also not permissible in view of the fact that the order was passed by this Court on 5.12.91 and against that order dtd. 5.12.91 (Annex. R/2) no special appeal is maintainable in the year 2003. Accordingly this prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner stands rejected.
14. For the reasons mentioned above, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable.
Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
No order as to costs.