1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R The Rajasthan State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Jaipur & Anr. Vs. Brijesh Narayan Mathur and Others. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 884/2007 ......... Date of Order : 27/05/2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR BY THE COURT Mr. M.L.Chandak for the petitioners. Mr. S.P.Sharma for the respondent. By the instant writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the award dated 8.8.2006 Annex.7 passed by respondent No.2, Labour Court, Jodhpur has been challenged. The petitioners who said to be employer seek quashing of award Annex.7 dated 8.8.2006. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the respondent No.1 said to have been engaged with the petitioners, however, his services were 2 terminated and therefore, he approached the Appropriate Government for making an industrial dispute reference. By order dated 11.12.1993, the State Govt made a reference to the respondent No.2 Labour Court, Jodhpur. On a notice to the parties, the reference was registered as Industrial Dispute Case No.1/94. By Award dated 27.6.1997 the Labour Court dismissed the claim petition, against which the respondent workman preferred a writ petition before this Court being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2163/97. The writ petition came to be decided by this Court by order dated 9.8.2005. While allowing the writ petition, the Award Annex.5 dated 27.6.1997 passed by the Labour Court was quashed with a direction to the respondent Labour Court to decide the dispute referred to it under Notification dated 11.12.1993 afresh by treating the petitioner therein as a workman employed with the Rajasthan State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jodhpur. In compliance of the order of this Court Annex.6 dated 9.8.2005, the respondent No.2 Labour Court decided the reference made to it and passed an award vide Annex.7 dated 8.8.2006. Hence this writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended the respondent No.1 is not employed by the petitioner Bank as he was engaged through a Private Detective namely “Goliath Detective Agency (P) Ltd. and worked for few years on an 3 engagement through the Goliath Detective Agency and therefore, the Labour Court fell in error in passing the award impugned against the petitioners. Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that this issue came to be decided by this Court in earlier round of litigation being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2163/97 decided on 9.8.2005 wherein the Labour Court was directed to decide the reference afresh treating the petitioner therein as a workman employed with the Rajasthan State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jodhpur and that order came to be challenged by way of Special Appeal before Division Bench of this Court being D.B.Civil Special Appeal No. 573/2007 which came to be dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 21.4.2008 and therefore, the finding arrived at by this Court vide Annex.6 dated 9.8.2005 in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2163/97 has attained the finality even up to Division Bench and therefore, it is not open to be assailed by way of a fresh writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Principal, Mehar Chand Polytechnic and Another Vs. Anu Lamba and Others (2006) 7 SCC, 161, State of Rajasthan Vs. Sarjeet Singh and Another (2006) 8 SCC, 508, Lal Mohammad and Others Vs. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. and Others (2007) 2 SCC, 513 and in State of U.P. and Others Vs. Desh Raj (2007) 1 SCC, 257. 4 Since the controversy raised in the instant writ petition that the respondent No.1 is not a workman employed by the Rajasthan State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jodhpur has already been decided by this Court and on an appeal, the appeal also came to be dismissed by the Division Bench as noticed above and therefore, that finding has attained finality even up to Division Bench of this Court as on date, in the circumstances, therefore, the decisions relied on by learned counsel for the petitioners turn on their own facts and are of no help to the petitioners in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. Ad-interim stay order dated 26.2.2007 stands vacated and stay petition also stands dismissed. The application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India also stands disposed of. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp