HARMOHINDER SINGH Vs. GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of civil writ petitions Nos. 133-D, 195-D and 133-D of 1965. Since the parties agree that decision in civil writ No. 165-D of 1965 govern the other two cases, I am confining myself only to the facts of the said petition

(2.) An industrial dispute arose between the petitioner-company and its workmen as represented by the Delhi Commercial Employees Sangh, respondent No. 3, and the same was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, vide 1. D. No. 74 of 1957. In the above reference the petitioner-company raised a preliminary objection that it was engaged only in managing its immoveable property known as "Sujan Singh Park" and was therefore, not an industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Industrial Dispates Act. It is alleged by the petitioner-company that due to some wrong advice the said objection was not pressed and consequently no issue was framed on this objection. While making the award, however, Shri E. Krishan Murti, the then Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, observed

(3.) It is further alleged in the writ petition that the Delhi Commercial Employees Sangh, respondent No. 3 (hereafter referred to as the Sangh), gave a notice to the petitioner company saying inter' alia that "the award dated 16th May, 1959, in industrial dispute No. 74 of 1957 is terminated by us." Issue of this notice has not been denied by the Sangh. Another industrial dispute arose between the petitioner company and its workmen Shri Thakar Singh, which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi vide Government order dated 5/10th August, 1961. The dispute related to the question of reinstatement of Shri Thakar Singh and was alleged to have been supported by the Sangh. The petitioner-company filed a writ petition to .this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and asked for quashing of the above reference on the ground that the petitioner-company did not carry on any industry within the meaning of section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Sangh filed a reply affidavit in this Court reciting inter alia that the question stood concluded by the earlier award of Tribunal. When the matter came up for hearing before P.D. Sharma J. the learned counsel for the petitioner-company prayed that the Tribunal may be directed to decide the question relating to the petitioner-company being or not being an industry as preliminary issue and the aggrieved party will then have recourse to appropriate proceedings according to law. In pursuance of this statement P.D. Sharma, J. dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn by his order dated 1st August, 1963, and directed the Tribunal to first decide the question whether the petitioner-company "is an industrial establishment within the meaning of this term as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act." When the matter went back to the Tribunal it recorded the evidence of the parties and by an interim award dated 18th January, 1965, decided that the issue as to whether the petitioner-corn. pan is carrying on an industry or not having been conclusively decided by the previous Tribunal it could not be re-agitated because of the interdictions by principles of res-judicata. By this petition the petitioner-company has challenged the said in rerim award.