MADHYA PRADESH IRRIGATION KARCHARI SANGH SANGH SAMBHAG GWALIOR CHAMBAL CANAL SHEOPUR KALAN DISTRICT MORENA M P Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE SECY LABOUR DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF M P BHOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE petitioner is a Trade Union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, representing the employees of Ghambal Hydel Irrigation Project of Government of Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'project') in the Gwalior Division. THE petitioner served three notices on the Deputy Chief Engineer Chambal Prkject, demanding certain allowances and wages for the period of strike in the year 1966 (vide Annexure B and C). As the petitioner received no reply to these notices the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Officer under section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). THE Conciliation Officer however failed to bring about an amicable settlement of the dispute and he submitted a report to the State Government under sub-section (4) of section 12 of the Act. As the Government failed to take any action on the report the petitioner filed a writ petition (M. P. No. 29 of 1969) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution against the State Government and the Labour Commissioner who are respondents in this case. THE petition was allowed by this Court and a writ of mandamus was issued directing the State Government to consider the report of the Conciliation Officer and to take necessary action under section 12(5) of the Act, vide order dated 23-1-70 (Annexure M). THEreafter, the Labour Commissioner intimated the petitioner that as the Chambal Project was an 'industry' within the meaning of clause (j) of section 2 of the Act, the dispute in question was not an 'industrial dispute* and as such it could not be referred to the Tribunal under section 12,5) of the Act, vide letter dated 17-3-71 (Annexure N). This action of the respondent has been challenged in this petition praying that the respondents be directed to make a reference to the Tribunal under sections 10 and 12 of the Act.

(3.) THE next point that was urged by Shri Dubey was that the plea of the State Government that the 'project' is not an 'industry' and as such the dispute is not an 'industrial dispute' within the meaning of the Act is barred on the principle of res judicata for two reasons. In the first place, this point was not raised by the respondents in the previous petition. Secondly, this point has been expressly decided by the Industrial Tribunal between the parties in a previous Reference No. 6/1. T./1966 M. P. Irrigation Karamchari Sangh Gwalior v. Chambal Hydal Irrigation Scheme, Gwalior decided on 30th November 1966 It is no doubt true that general principles of res judicata are applicable to writ petitions, but since this point was not expressly decided in the earlier petition which was founded on a different cause of action, the plea cannot be barred on the principle of res judicata As for the decision of the Industrial Tribunal it cannot also operate as res judicata because the subject- matter of the case before the Tribunal was different.