- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari-Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed against an award dated 27.9.2000 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (III), U. P., Kanpur in Adjudication Dispute No. 165 of 1994. By the aforesaid award, the labour court has held that the termination of the workman w.e.f. 26.10.1969 was illegal but instead of granting relief of reinstatement in service with full back wages the labour court only granted wages and other benefits from 1.9.1994 to 31.12.1997, i.e., wages from the date of reference to the date of retirement. The facts in brief are that respondent No. 1, the workman concerned was working on the post of driver in the erstwhile U. P. Government Roadways. On 15.5.1969, he was found carrying 16 passengers without tickets besides two cycles without proper booking, when the bus was checked by the checking authorities on Fatehpur-Kishanpur route. He was removed from service on 2.10.1969 after holding a departmental enquiry into the misconduct. The order of removal is appended as Annexure-1 to the writ petition as under : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... A departmental appeal was preferred by the respondent-workman against the order of removal which was rejected on 9.1.1970.
(3.) AFTER removal from service from U. P. Roadways in 1969 no action was taken by the workmen challenging his termination. Later on when the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation was created on 1.6.1972, the workman filed a claim petition in the year 1976 before the Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow, challenging his removal from service by the U. P. Government Roadways. Thereafter he filed Writ Petition No. 19932 of 1987, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 3.11.1987 on the ground of latches/limitation. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that Writ Petition No. 1932 of 1987 having been dismissed, the industrial dispute raised by the workman relating to his removal from service was barred by the principles of res judicata as the earlier writ court judgment would amount to a 'case finally decided' within the meaning of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has relied upon the decisions rendered in Pondicherry Khadi and Village Industries Board v. P. Kulothangan and another, 2003 (99) FLR 1175 and Ram Gobinda Daw and others v. Smt. H. Bhakta Bvala Dassi etc., AIR 1971 SC 664, in support of above contention.;