Constructive res judicata bars a second challenge to the same removal order through industrial dispute proceedings.

A party that has already challenged a dismissal or removal order in a writ petition and failed cannot reopen the same cause of action through an industrial dispute on different grounds. The principle of constructive res judicata, reflected in Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC, prevents matters that ought to have been raised earlier from being re-agitated. The doctrine of election and the rule against approbation and reprobation also bar successive attacks on the same decision in another forum. On that basis, the appropriate Government may refuse reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act where no genuine industrial dispute survives.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner could, after unsuccessfully challenging the order of removal by writ petition, raise an industrial dispute on fresh grounds in respect of the same dismissal, and whether the appropriate Government was justified in refusing reference on that basis.

Analysis: The writ petition had already assailed the dismissal order on merits and had been dismissed. The same punishment was thereafter sought to be questioned through the industrial dispute machinery, though on different grounds. The Court held that the cause of action remained the same, namely the order of removal, and that a party who elects one available remedy cannot, after failing there, pursue another forum to re-agitate the same decision on new grounds. Explanation IV of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 embodied the principle of constructive res judicata, preventing matters which ought to have been raised earlier from being reopened. The Court also relied on the doctrine of election and the principle that a party cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. It further held that the appropriate Government acts administratively while deciding reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and may refuse reference where no genuine industrial dispute survives because the matter has already been concluded inter partes.

Conclusion: The petitioner was barred from re-litigating the removal order before another forum, and the refusal to make a reference was justified.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the refusal of reference failed because the dismissal of the earlier writ petition concluded the controversy and precluded a second attack on the same removal order through industrial dispute proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A party who has elected one remedy and obtained a final adjudication on the same cause of action cannot subsequently reopen the same matter in another forum on different grounds, and the appropriate Government may decline reference where no real industrial dispute survives.

---