Case: Mukand Staff and Officers' Association Vs. Mukand Limited

2. This appeal arises from the order datedpassed in Writ Petition No.2516 of 2006. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents herein against the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal onwhereby the application datedfiled by the appellants herein in Reference (IT) No.76 of 2001 was allowed. The said application was filed by the appellants seeking to introduce certain pleadings, particularly on the point of "estoppel" and "community of interest" between the workmen and thefrom amongst the monthly rated staff. The learned single Judge while observing that the question as regards the community of interest and of estoppel was specifically the subject matter of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mukand Ltd. v. Mukand Staff and Association Officers Association, reported in 2004 I CLR 1062, held that the appellants by the proposed amendment had sought to set up the same plea that the respondents herein, who are the employers, are estopped by their past conduct from contending that certain members of the monthly rated staff are not workmen and the second plea to the effect that there is community of interest between the workmen at whose behest the reference has been made and thefrom amongst the monthly rated staff. The learned single Judge has, therefore, set aside the order of the Industrial Tribunal and has dismissed the application for amendment to the extent it relates to the said two pleas. It is to be noted that the reference in the case in hand was in relation to demand raised by the appellants that for the yearall the members of the association were entitled for bonus at the rate of 20% in accordance with the Payment of Bonus Act and as per the custom of payment of bonus to all the employees including those drawing salary of more than Rs.3,500/per month.

Court's reasoning:
The second plea that is sought to be advanced is that there is a community of interest between the workmen at whose behest the reference has been made and thefrom amongst the monthly rated staff. In sum and substance, therefore, two pleas are sought to be advanced viz. (i) the plea of estoppel and (ii) the plea that there is community of interest between the workmen and theon whose behalf the claim inthe reference is also sought to beso, the finding arrived at by the learned single Judge that the proposed amendment is the verbatim copy of the earlier rejected amendment cannot be found fault with.Considering the said decision of the Apex Court, therefore, in our considered opinion, no fault can be found with the impugnedto this ruling, it was sought to be contended that since in the earlier proceedings, there was no pleading on the points of estoppel and community of interest, the ruling of the Apex Court cannot be construed as res judicata in the matter in hand. The contention cannot be accepted for more than one reason. It is true that in the earlier proceedings there were no pleadings on those points. However, the Apex Court after considering the matter on merits has clearly held, as observed above, thatcannot be given the status and protection available to the workmen under the Act. The Apex Court has clearly held that the findings of the Court below on the point of community of interest was based on misconstruction of evidence and in disregard to the vital facts. The result of this ruling of the Apex Court is that the appellants had failed to establish their case in relation to the claim of community of interest and estoppel. Being so, the said issues have attained finality, as stated above. That apart, the decision in Isher Singhs case was on the applicability of the principle of res judicata in the facts and circumstances of the case before the Apex Court. It was not in a case wherein in the earlier proceedings, the Apex Court on consideration of the merits of the case had arrived at the final finding on the dispute between the parties. Merely on account of absence of pleadings, it can be held that the point had not been finally decided, in the face of clear decision of the Apex Court on the relevant issue. Being so, the decision is of no help to the appellants in the case in hand.16. For the reasons stated above, therefore, we do not find any case being made out for interference in the impugnedthe contrary, it was specifically applied in M/s. Straw 499 Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd.L.L.J. 499. What the Apex Court has held in the Hindustan Levers case is that though the Court should be slow in applying the said principle to the industrial proceedings, it should not hesitate to apply the same when it is seen that attempt is made to raise similar dispute repeatedly in defiance of operative settlement and awards. Once it is clear that the issue which is sought to be agitated was raised earlier and was adjudicated upto the stage of the Apex Court and there has been a decision of the Apex Court on the issue between the same parties, one cannot be allowed tothe same issue again and again as it would virtually result in nullifying the effect of the decision of the highest Court on the issue or dispute between the parties. No encouragement can be given to the litigants to raise the same issue again and again in spite of the fact that the Apex Court has finally ruled on such issue, and neither the workmen nor the management can be exception to this rule.The decisions sought to be relied upon are of no help to the appellants to canvas the contention regarding theof the principle of res judicata in labour proceedings.