THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 27308 OF 2007 O R D E R: The petitioner was employed as a Driver in the Kothagudem Depot of APSRTC. He was removed from service on 1.6.2002, on disciplinary grounds. After exhausting the departmental remedies, he approached the Labour Court, by ﬁling I.D.No.129 of 2002, in the Labour Court, Warangal. The ID was dismissed for default on 20.9.2004. The award, in turn, was published on 3.1.2005. The petitioner ﬁled I.A.No.247 of 2004, under Order IX Rule IX C.P.C., on 23.12.2004. The Labour Court dismissed the I.A., on 6.10.2005, on the ground that it is not accompanied by an application to condone the delay. Thereafter, the petitioner ﬁled I.D.(SR) No.3197 of 2007, against the order of dismissal from service. The Labour Court passed an order dated 26.11.2007, dismissing the said unregistered I.D. This writ petition is ﬁled, assailing the order, dated 6.10.2005, passed in I.A.No.247 of 2004, as well as the one, dated 26.11.2007, dismissing the unregistered I.D. Heard Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt.P. Rajani Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner remained absent, when I.D.No.129 of 2002 was called on 20.9.2004. Therefore, the Labour Court dismissed the same, for default. His eﬀorts to get the I.D. restored, by ﬁling I.A.No.247 of 2004, under Rule 9 of Order IX C.P.C., were not successful. The petitioner presented a fresh I.D, under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Applying the principle of res judicata, the Labour Court rejected the I.D, through its order dated 26.11.2007. The petitioner now pursued his remedy, more against the order dated 26.11.2007, rejecting the second I.D., than the rejection of I.A.No.247 of 2004. The question as to whether the dismissal of I.D., for default, and an order not passed on merits, would operate as res judicata, or would bar a subsequent industrial dispute, was dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in VEERENDRA BHANDARI v. RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION & OTHERS[1]. In that case, it was a reference under Section 10 of the Act. the Labour Court dismissed the reference, on the ground that the parties were not present. Subsequently, the appropriate Government made a reference, under Section 10, for the second time, on the same dispute. The Labour Court refused to entertain the second reference, on the ground that it is barred by res judicata. The Supreme Court took the view that, as long as an adjudication, on merits, was not rendered by an Industrial Dispute, the subsequent reference is not barred. While the subject matter of the case before the Supreme Court was a reference under Section 10, in the instant case, it is a dispute raised under Section 2-A(2). There does not exist any qualitative diﬀerence, in these two categories of cases. But for amendment to Section 2, even a dispute, in relation to removal or dismissal of an employee, were to have been the subject matter of a reference, under Section 10. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court, the writ petition is allowed, and order dated 26.11.2007, passed in I.D.(sr) No.3197 of 2007, is set aside. The Labour Court is directed to register the I.D, and dispose of the same, on merits, after giving opportunity to the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ 5th August 2008 PAN [1] 2002 LLR 1085