TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether dismissal of the earlier special leave petition by a non-speaking order operated as res judicata so as to bar the subsequent writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the Industrial Tribunal exceeded the scope of the reference by granting relief of additional half day wages and a compensating holiday while dealing with the demand concerning the roster off system.
Issue (i): Whether dismissal of the earlier special leave petition by a non-speaking order operated as res judicata so as to bar the subsequent writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The principle of res judicata applies not only to matters expressly decided but also to issues necessarily or constructively determined. However, a dismissal in limine by a non-speaking order does not, by itself, show that the merits of all questions were considered and decided. Such an order only establishes that the case was not found fit for grant of special leave. It cannot safely be assumed, without express reasons, that every contention raised in the special leave petition was finally adjudicated. A subsequent writ proceeding is therefore not barred merely because an earlier special leave petition against the same award was dismissed without reasons.
Conclusion: The non-speaking dismissal of the special leave petition did not bar the writ petition by res judicata.
Issue (ii): Whether the Industrial Tribunal exceeded the scope of the reference by granting relief of additional half day wages and a compensating holiday while dealing with the demand concerning the roster off system.
Analysis: The reference was confined to whether the demand for changing the roster off system into a Sunday-off system for the concerned categories of employees was justified. The Tribunal, instead of confining itself to that question, proceeded to grant a further and different relief by directing payment of additional half day wages for Sunday work. That relief was not within the terms of reference. Even on the Tribunal's own reasoning, the proper course was only to answer the reference on the justifiability of the demand regarding the roster off system. By travelling beyond that issue, the Tribunal committed an error apparent on the face of the award and acted beyond jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The Tribunal's award, to the extent it granted additional wage relief, was beyond the scope of the reference and could not stand.
Final Conclusion: The High Court's interference with the award was upheld and the workmen's appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A non-speaking dismissal of special leave does not, by itself, constitute res judicata on the merits of the underlying controversy, and a tribunal cannot award relief beyond the specific terms of the industrial reference.
TaxTMI 
