Madhusudan Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal & Ors, Calcutta High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner, Madhusudan Ghosh, was an employee of Mother Dairy who was convicted in a criminal case and subsequently removed from service. After completing his sentence, he filed writ petition W.P. 962(W) of 2014 seeking, among other reliefs, a direction for his reinstatement as contract labour on a daily wage basis at Mother Dairy along with financial benefits. The earlier writ petition was disposed of by a Single Judge on January 20, 2014, with a direction that all payments due to the petitioner from respondent No. 2 be released by respondent No. 3 within a stipulated period. Following the payments, the petitioner filed the present writ petition (W.P. 18422(W) of 2017) again praying for engagement as casual labour on a daily wage basis, which was the same relief sought and not granted in the earlier petition.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the petitioner can seek the relief of engagement as daily wage casual labour in a subsequent writ petition after the same relief was refused in an earlier writ petition.

Whether the principle of constructive res judicata under Explanation V to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to writ petitions.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner contended that despite payments being made pursuant to the earlier order, he should be directed to be engaged as casual labour on a daily wage basis by the respondents.

Respondent's Arguments

This information was not available in the provided opinion.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Explanation V to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure	Constructive res judicata: Relief not expressly granted by the court in earlier proceedings is deemed refused.	The Court applied this principle to hold that the petitioner's prayer for engagement as daily wage labour, which was not granted in the earlier writ petition, is deemed refused and cannot be pursued again.
Principle of Res Judicata in Writ Petitions	Res judicata and constructive res judicata apply with equal force to writ petitions as they do to civil proceedings.	The Court relied on this settled legal position to dismiss the present writ petition as barred by res judicata.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

Explanation V to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure

Constructive res judicata: Relief not expressly granted by the court in earlier proceedings is deemed refused.

The Court applied this principle to hold that the petitioner's prayer for engagement as daily wage labour, which was not granted in the earlier writ petition, is deemed refused and cannot be pursued again.

Principle of Res Judicata in Writ Petitions

Res judicata and constructive res judicata apply with equal force to writ petitions as they do to civil proceedings.

The Court relied on this settled legal position to dismiss the present writ petition as barred by res judicata.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that the petitioner’s current writ petition seeks the same relief—engagement as daily wage casual labour—that was earlier sought and not granted in writ petition W.P. 962(W) of 2014. Applying Explanation V to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court held that any relief not expressly granted in earlier proceedings is deemed refused, constituting constructive res judicata. The Court further emphasized that the principle of res judicata, including its constructive aspect, applies equally to writ petitions as it does to civil proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner’s attempt to obtain the same relief in a separate writ petition after its refusal in the earlier case was impermissible. Consequently, the petition was found to be without merit and dismissed.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

The Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of constructive res judicata, establishing that a relief not granted in an earlier writ petition is deemed refused and cannot be pursued again in a separate petition. The direct effect is the denial of the petitioner’s prayer for engagement as daily wage labour. No new precedent was created beyond reaffirming the settled principle that res judicata applies to writ petitions.

Madhusudan Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal & Ors

131.08.17 Cl 260 W.P. 18422(W) of 2017 Madhusudan Ghosh -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Tanmoy Chowdhury, ... for the petitioner Mr. Siddhartha Chatterjee, Mr. A. Mitra,, ... for the respondent No. 2 Let the affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the record.

The petitioner was an employee of the Mother Dairy. He was convicted in a criminal case and was removed from service. After he served out the sentence, he filed a writ petition being W.P. 962(W) of 2014 in the Court, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the respondents to continue his service as a contract labour on daily wage basis in the Mother Dairy and for financial benefits which he is entitled to. That writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court on January 20, 2014 by directing that all payments due to the petitioner from the respondent No. 2 to be released by the respondent No. 3 within a certain period.

Mr. Chowdhury, the learned advocate for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the said order, payments have already been made. However, he again prays for a direction upon the respondents to engage him as casual labour on daily wage basis.

2The present writ petition with the prayer as mentioned above, is plainly not maintainable. This was also the prayer for the petitioner in the earlier writ petition being W.P. 962(W) of 2014. That has not been allowed by the Court. The law on the point is very well-settled that on the analogous principle of constructive res judicata as provided in explanation V to Section 11 of the Code of Civil procedure that any relief claimed in the petition which has not expressly granted by the Court, shall for the purpose of that provision of law be deemed to have been refused. Since the prayer for engagement on daily wage basis was a prayer made in the earlier writ petitioner and not granted, it must be deemed to have been refused by the Court in the earlier writ petition. The petitioner cannot pray the same relief in the separate writ petition after being refused the same in the earlier round of litigation. The law is also equally well settled that the principle of res judicata along with the constructive res judicate applies to a writ petition with equal force as it applies to a civil proceeding.

I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties at an early date.

(Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti,J)

WP 18422W Of 2017

Madhusudan Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

Respondent's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Madhusudan Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal & Ors

Comments