The Super Surgical Company v. S. Desikan And Another.

This petition has been filed by the Management foe the issue of e writ of certiorari to call for the records of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, and to quash Its order entertaining a freab petition filed by the first respondent on the same matter on which no earlier petition wee dismissed.

The first respondent was an employee of the petitioner-firm. The services of the first respondent wes terminated after giving a full month's notice and according to the petitioner, tbc first respondent accepted the notice and flayed away from service. The first respen-deal subsequently filed a calim petition under S. 33(e)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the Labour Court. Madras, claiming n sum of Rs. 4740 under various beads like ret-renehroeat compentition, earned wages leave wages, bonus, commission and gratuity, The petition was numbered aa C.P No. 143 of 1965. The petitioner filed a counter and the matter, after several adjournment, was taken up on 23rd November 1965-The first rsspondent stated that be was not pressing the petition. He made an endorsment the petition was dismissed. Subsequently, the first respondent came up witn a freab claim petition No. 263 of 1966 based of the seme grounds as C.P No. 143 of 1965. The petitioner filed a counter taking a preliminary objection that as the previous petition on the same ground has been dismissed by the Labour court, it was aot open to the Labour Court to entertain a fresh petition on the same allegations. This objection was overruled and hence this writ petition.

According to the Labour Court, as the first respondent made an endorsement to the effect that be was withdrawing the petition without prejudice to the right to file a fresh petition, be filed a fresh petition ie accordance with the endrosment and therefore, the management cannot question his right to do so. In thie connection, it may be stated that the order of the court is dismissed and it does not refer to the endoresment or that it granted leave to withdraw the petition and to file a fresh petition. Apert from this obstacle that no leave was granted by the court to file a fresh petition, there is a legal objection to the entertainment of the fresh petition.

Sec. 11 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act provides that the Labour Court shall have powera aa are vested In a civil court under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, when trying a suit. In respect of the matters enumerated in the Section. See. 11 (3) (d) empowere the Labour Court to exercise the powers in respect of matters that may be prescribed under the rules.

Neither in the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules nor in the Madras Industrial Disputes Rules, the Labour Court is empowered to grant leave to withdraw an application with permission to file a fresh application on the same grounds. As this power has not been con ferred on the Labour Court, the Labour Court cannot exercise such power. It is not disputed that the principle of res judicate is applicable to the Lebour Const end the Labour CourS would rot entertain a fresh petition on the same cause of action unless it is empowered to do so. As there Is no provision for entertaining a fresh application, the preliminary objection taken by the petitioner befere tbc Labour Court will have to be upbeld.

This writ petition is allowed and the preliminary objection by the petitioner before the Labour Court is upheld and the first respondent's petition before the Labour Court is dismissed. No order as to costs.

V.C.S