ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. ORIENTAL RUBBER INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the Association of Engineering Workers, Bombay, which is a registered Trade Union. The petitioner represents the employees in the establishment of the respondent company. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the Industrial Court maharashtra, Bombay dated 20-6-1988, dismissing its complaint under Sections 28 and 30 read with item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU AND PULP Act.)

(2.) THE complaint of the petitioner was directed against a notice of closure dated 3. 11. 188 issued by the respondent company under Section 25-FFA of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The case of the petitioner was that the action of closure of establishment by the impugned notice was illegal and amounted to unfair labour practice within the meaning of the Act. The complaint was filed in 1987 before the Industrial Court Maharashtra, Bombay and was registered as Complaint- ULP No. 1006 of 1987. The Industrial Court heard the parties and dismissed the complaint of the petitioner. The complaint was dismissed on two grounds. First, that the complaint was barred by principles of res-judicata in as much as the very same notice of closure had been challenged by the petitioner, as back as in 1980, which had been registered as complaint (ULP) No. 257 of 1980 and the said complaint was dismissed in view of the finding of the Industrial Court that the closure notice dated 3. 11. 1980 was bona fide and genuine and there were good grounds and justification for the respondent company to resort to this remedy of closure. This was done by the Industrial Court by its order dated 8. 3. 1982.

(3.) THE Industrial Court examined the earlier complaint and the judgment passed thereon and came to a conclusion that the very same notice was subject matter of challenge in the earlier complaint which had been dismissed in view of the finding that the closure was justified and bona fide. It also found that the above finding on the earlier complaint has not been challenged by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, it was of the opinion that the principle of res-judicata applied and no fresh complaint could be filed after long lapse of five years to reagitate the very same issue which had already been decided against the petitioner.