- (1.) RESPONDENT No. 3 was appointed as a Supervisor in the petitioner's federation, which is a Co-operative Federation Authority constituted under section 123 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act to supervise the working of the co-operative Societies in U. P. The services of the respondent No. 3 was terminated since he was appointed on a purely temporary basis. The respondent No. 3 filed a writ petition No. 1855 of 1981 in which a counter affidavit was called for and after the exchange of the affidavits, the writ petition was dismissed by a judgment dated 6-5-1982.
(2.) NOTWITHSTANDING the dismissal of the writ petition, the respondent No. 3 raised an Industrial Dispute under section 4k of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner contested the matter and filed its written statement and submitted that the provisions of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act could not be invoked, inasmuch as, the respondent No. 3 was not a workman as defined under section 2 (z) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. Further, the petitioner was not an Industry and therefore, no industrial dispute could be referred for adjudication under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act nor was the Act applicable upon the petitioner. The petitioner also contended that the dispute referred for adjudication before the labour Court was barred by the principle of constructive res judicata since all the pleas relating to the order of termination was challenged in a writ petition which was dismissed and therefore the same pleas could not be re-agitated in another forum.
(3.) THE Labour Court after considering the evidence and the material on the record, rejected the contention of the petitioner and held that the adjudication proceedings under the provisions of U. P. Industrial disputes Act was not barred by the principle of constructive res judicata and that, the petitioner was an industry and, therefore, the provisions of u. P. Industrial Disputes Act was applicable. The labour Court, on merits, found that the order of termination was not correct and therefore, directed reinstatement of respondent No. 3 with full back wages. Aggrieved, the petitioner- has filed the present writ petition.;