GARG, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and award dtd. 5. 3. 90 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur by which the order dtd. 12. 12. 82 passed by the respondent No. 2 by which services of the petitioner were terminated was set aside and he was further ordered to be reinstated in service, but on back wages, he was given only Rs. 5000/- and in this writ petition the order by which he was given Rs. 5000/- as back wages has been challenged.
(2.) THE facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under : (i) That the petitioner was conductor in the employment of respondent No. 2 (Divisional Manager, RSRTC, Udaipur and respondent No. 3 RSRTC, Jaipur. THE petitioner's services were terminated on 12. 12. 82. Against the termination of his services, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the State of Rajasthan was pleased to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur (respondent No. 1) to the effect whether order of termination of services of the petitioner dtd. 12. 12. 82 was valid and proper or not. (ii) That the Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur (respondent No. 1) through judgment and award dtd. 5. 3. 90 answered that the order of termination of services of the petitioner dtd. 12. 12. 82 was not valid and, therefore, the petitioner was reinstated in service, but on back wages, he was given only Rs. 5000/ -. This part of order by which the petitioner was given Rs. 5000/- only as back wages has been challenged in this case, and the case of the petitioner is that he should have been given full back wages or atleast 50% of back wages. Hence, this writ petition with the abovementioned prayed. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and their case is that the impugned judgment and award dtd. 5. 3. 90 (Annex. 1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur is perfectly in accordance with law and apart from this, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that before filing the present writ petition, a writ petition was filed by the present respondents against the judgment and awarded dtd. 5. 3. 90 (Annex. 1) and in that writ petition, notice was given to the petitioner and his counsel appeared in this Court and this Court through order dtd. 5. 12. 91 (Annex. R/2) dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondents and judgment and award dtd. 5. 3. 90 (Annex. 1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur (respondent No. 1) was upheld and when this being the position, the second writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and it should be dismissed on the ground of non- maintainability. Heard and perused the record. That this Court while deciding the writ petition No. 4356/90 filed by the present respondents against the judgment and award dtd. 5. 3. 90 (Annex. 1) passed the following order : " It has been recorded by the learned Member, Tribunal that the department representative himself has confessed that inspite of writing the Headquarter for sending the original record, but the record has not been tracted. Therefore, there was no option left with the learned Member, Tribunal but to proceed with the matter on the basis of the record available with it. Thus, in this view of the matter, I do not find any error committed by the member Tribunal so as to warrant interference by this Court. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. It may be stated here that in the earlier writ petition No. 4356/90 filed by the present respondents No. 2 and 3, Mr. N. M. Lodha appeared for the present petitioner and that writ petition was decided on merits by this Court through order dtd. 5. 12. 91 (Annex. R/2 ).
(3.) THE pertinent question which arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances just mentioned above, the present writ petition is maintainable or not when the earlier writ petition No. 4356/90 against the same judgment and award dtd. 5. 3. 90 (Annex. 1) was dismissed by this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the present petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Burn & Co. vs. Their Employees (1), has held as under : ". . . . . That would be contrary to the well-recognised principle that a decision once rendered by a competent authority on a matter in issue between the parties after a full enquiry should not be permitted to be re-agitated. It is on this principle that the rule of res judicata enacted in S. 11, Civil P. C. is based. That section, is no doubt in terms inapplicable to the present matter, but the principle underlying it expressed in the maxim "interest rei publicae ut sit finis litium", is founded on sound public policy and is of universal application. . . "the rule of res judicata is dictated". . . . . "by a wisdom which is for all time. " And there are good reasons why this principle should be applicable to the decisions of Industrial Tribunal also. . . . " Similar view has been taken in the case of Workman of the Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. M/s. Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (2), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under : ". . . . . It is now well established that, although the entire Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to industrial adjudication, the principles of res judicata laid down under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, however, are applicable, wherever possible, for very good reasons. This is so since multiplicity of litigation and agitation and re-agitation of the same dispute at issue between the same employer and his employees will not be conducive to industrial peace which is the principal object of all labour legislation bearing on industrial adjudication. . . " ;