Res judicata barred a fresh industrial dispute for reinstatement after the same claim was earlier rejected in writ proceedings.

An industrial dispute seeking reinstatement was held barred by res judicata because the same parties had already litigated the same cause of action in earlier writ proceedings. The earlier High Court proceedings were competent to decide the reinstatement claim, and the claim had been rejected by a reasoned order after contest. Recasting the matter as a fresh industrial dispute did not change its character, since the same relief had already been sought and refused. Constructive res judicata also applied, preventing the Labour Court from reopening an issue finally decided between the parties.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent's industrial dispute for reinstatement was barred by res judicata in view of the earlier writ proceedings between the parties.

Analysis: The earlier writ petition and the subsequent industrial dispute involved the same parties and arose from the same cause of action, namely the appellant's refusal to permit the respondent to rejoin service. The High Court in the earlier proceedings had the competence to decide the question, and it had rejected the claim for reinstatement by a reasoned order after contest. The fact that the industrial adjudication was styled as a fresh dispute did not alter the position, because the same relief had already been claimed and refused. The principle of res judicata, including constructive res judicata, prevented the Labour Court from reopening an finally decided between the parties.

Conclusion: The industrial dispute was barred by res judicata and the Labour Court had no competence to re-adjudicate it.

---