KHARGESWAR NARZARY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole question which falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guwahati is correct in holding that Reference Case No. 7 of 2009 is hit by the principles of res judicata?

(2.) TO appreciate the controversy, I will first deal with the facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioners. There are 18 petitioners in this writ petition. They were initially appointed as regular employees at the Bongaigaon Thermal Power Station (BTPS), Dhaligaon on different dates between 1981 and 1986. Later, their appointment letters were recalled and were then shown to be contract labours; they were issued ID cards instead of appointment letters but by accommodating them in official residential quarters. They were stated to have been treated as regular employees for all practical purposes. However, in the year 2002, their services were abruptly terminated purportedly on the ground that the BTPS had stopped production and that the contractual period of the contractor supplying labours had also stood expired. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners filed WP(C) No. 4855 of 2006 before this Court, which by the order dated 3 -3 -2009 disposed of the writ petition by directing them to seek alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act" for short).

(3.) AGGRIEVED by this, the two Unions approached this Court in WP(C) No. 5154 of 2006, which was dismissed by this Court on 10 -1 -2007 by holding that there was no sufficient ground for its interference. According to the petitioners, inasmuch as they are not parties to this common award dated 27 -1 -2006, they filed WP(C) No. 4855 of 2006 before this Court, which the order dated 3 -3 -2009 disposed of the writ petition by directing them, like other similarly situated persons, to avail of alternative remedy provided for under the Act. When the petitioners had already taken steps for initiating the reference proceeding i.e. Reference Case No. 7 of 2009 before the Labour Court, the respondent No. 3 filed WP(C) No. 4620 of 2009 before this Court challenging the legality of the proceeding on the ground of res judicata by contending that the same subject - matter, having been finally adjudicated upon between the same parties in Reference Case No. 8 of 2002 and Reference Case No. 6 of 2003, Reference Case No. 7 of 2009 is barred by the principles of res judicata, is liable to be closed. This Court, after hearing the parties, disposed of the writ petition on 19 -5 -2010 by remitting the case to the Labour Court to verify the identities of the private respondents (the petitioners herein) of the writ petition and the subject -matter of the Reference Case No. 7 of 2009 as the well as the identities of the parties and the subject -matter of Reference Case No. 8 of 2002 and that of Reference Case No. 6 of 2003 and thereafter pass necessary order on the basis of the result of such verifications. After hearing both the parties, the Labour Court passed the impugned order dated 5 -9 -2010 holding that Reference Case No. 7 of 2009 was not maintainable being barred by the principle of res judicata and that no fresh award could be passed on the terms set by the Government of Assam through the said reference notification No. GLR. 109/2009/8 -A, dated 26 -5 -2009. The Labour Court accordingly dropped the reference case without answering the issues/terms referred to by the Government through that notification by holding that the parties in Reference Case No. 8 of 2002 and Reference Case No. 6 of 2003 on the one hand and the parties in Reference Case No. 7 of 2009 are one and the same parties.