Balbir Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.4.2003, passed in Writ Petition No. 18054 of 2003 by which the learned Single Judge has issued direction to the District Collector, Allahabad to consider the application of the petitioner for recovery of dues in pursuance of the recovery certificate issued by the Additional Labour Commissioner in pursuance of the order of the Labour Court. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the respondent No. 1 -workman had earlier approached the Labour Court and there had been certain order in his favour. Being aggrieved present appellant filed Writ Petition No. 43796 of 2001 challenging the order of the Labour Court and this Court while entertaining the said petition stayed the operation of the order of the Labour Court dated 6.11.2001 only for a period of three months vide order dated 8.1.2002. The said order was not extended after its expiry on 7.4.2002. As there was no interim order in favour of the present appellant, the respondent No. 1 took steps to get the order of the Labour Court dated 6.11.2001 implemented and hence the Additional Labour Commissioner issued the recovery certificate, but the respondent No. 2 District Collector, Allahabad did not take any step to make the recovery. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the respondent No. 1 filed the Writ Petition No. 18054 of 2003 which has been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 28.4.2003 issuing direction to respondent No. 2 to make the recovery within a period of three months. Hence this appeal. Respondent No. 2 to look into the matter and after giving an opportunity to the appellant to show cause why the recovery should not be made against him, and if the respondent No. 2 is not satisfied with the reply of the appellant, he will proceed to make the recovery within three months of production of certified copy of the order through concerned officer of the department.
(2.) MRS . Poonam Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 was not maintainable in view of the fact that writ petition filed by the appellant itself is pending and successive writ petition for the same cause of action is not permissible as barred by the provisions of Chapter XII,R.7 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1951. In support of her submission she has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Dr. Mrs. Krishna Srivastava and others v. State of U.P. and others : 1998 (2) UPLBEC 1280, wherein it has categorically been held by the Division Bench of this Court that successive writ petition on same facts and cause of action is against public policy and thus, filing such a petition amounts to abuse of process of the Court, and therefore, not maintainable. Submissions made by Mrs. Srivastava in law are sustainable as the same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court from time and again. The issue of filing successive writ petition has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again and held that even if the earlier writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn, Public Policy which is reflected in the principle enshrined in Order 23,R.1 C.P.C., mandates that successive writ petition be not entertained for the same relief. (Vide M/s. Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal : 1987 (13) ALR 35 (SC) (Sum.) : AIR 1987 SC 88; Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Development Authority : 1994 (6) SCC 97; and Khacher Singh v. State of U.P. and others : AIR 1995 All. 332).
(3.) EVEN if a party does not pray for the relief in the earlier writ petition, which he ought to have claimed in the earlier petition, he cannot file a successive writ petition claiming that relief, as it would be barred by the principle of constructive res judicata enshrined in Explanation IV to section 11 and Order 2,R.2 C.P.C. as has been explained, in unambiguous and crystal clear language by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. T.P. Kumaran : 1996 (74) FLR 2522 (SC), Union of India and others v. Punni Lal : 1996 (11) SCC 112 and D. Cawasji & Co. v. State of Mysore : AIR 1975 SC 813.;