IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09/08/2005
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.MARKANDEY KATJU, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
W.A. No. 878 of 2005
K.Appadurai Appellant
-Vs-
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Vellore Electricity Distribution Circle,
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore-6.
2. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Tiruvannamalai Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tiruvannamalai.
3. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Vellore. ... Respondents
Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of this
Court passed in W.P.No.4927 of 1996 dated 7.3.2002.
!For Appellant :: Mr.B.Divakaran
^For Respondents :: Mr.V.Radhakrishnan
:JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE)
This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment
of the learned single Judge dated 7.3.2002. We have heard learned counsel for
the parties and perused the records.
2. The petitioner/appellant raised an industrial dispute
alleging that he was appointed in 1965 as a temporary worker in the service of
the Electricity Board at Cheyyar and he was transferred to Pallikonda
construction work, where he continued to work till 1973. Since he was not
made permanent he continued to work as a casual worker till the year 1974 and
thereafter he was transferred to Cheyyar Construction division where he worked
as a casual labourer till the year 1984 and from 1984 to 1989 he worked as a
watchman in Vandavasi section. On 6.1.1989 when he went to work he was not
given work and his service was terminated. The claim of the petitioner was
disputed by the respondent Electricity Board on the ground that the petitioner
was appointed only for a short period namely from 15.9.1971 to 31.12.1971 in
Cheyyar Division. He was also engaged as a watchman only through a private
detective agency and he was not working under the control of the respondent
Electricity Board. Therefore, his claim that he was appointed by the
Electricity Board till the year 1984 was denied by the respondent.
3. The Labour Court by its award dated 2.8.1995 held in
paragraph 6 that the claim of the petitioner that he worked from 1965 is based
on no evidence. There is also no evidence that he worked as an employee of
the Board at any time after 1972. In fact he has sent a letter to the
Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Vellore in 1988 wherein
he has clearly admitted that he was employed as a temporary casual labourer
and his service was terminated from 4.2.1973. The petitioner was working only
as a labourer under a private contractor namely M/s.Hindustan Security and
Detective services. This is evidenced by Ex.M3 acquittance for payment of
wages for December 1988. Thus the petitioner was working under a private
contractor and was not an employee of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. It
appears that he was taking small contracts from the Board but he was never
employed by the Board.
4. In paragraph 7 of the award the Labour Court has held that
the petitioner has come to Court after a lapse of nearly 23 years. He ceased
to be a temporary casual labourer from 1972 and was never in the employment
under the respondent. In view of this the Labour Court dismissed the claim of
the petitioner.
5. The petitioner also filed a second writ petition in
W.P.No.3860 of 1999 for a direction to the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board to pass orders on the representation made by the petitioner
on 16.4.1996, 27.7.1998 and 17.11.1998. In our opinion this second writ
petition was not maintainable as it was barred by the principles of
resjudicata/constructive resjudicata. The principle of resjudicata is based
on sound public policy namely that there must be an end to a litigation. The
principle of constructive resjudicata is also similar namely, that if any
thing is pleaded and sought to be proved in the first litigation, it cannot be
allowed to be pleaded and proved in a second round of litigation, otherwise
there will be no end to a litigation. Thus, there is no force in this appeal
and it is dismissed. No costs.
Index: Yes.
Internet: Yes.
ns.
To
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Vellore Electricity Distribution Circle,
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore-6.
2. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Tiruvannamalai Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tiruvannamalai.
3. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Vellore.