Judgement

UNTWALIA, J.:- This is an appeal by special leave directed from the order dated 1-4-1969 of the Central Government Labour Court, Delhi passed under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity-the Act). The workman concerned was Shri R. K Bhatia who died during the pendency of the appeal in this Court. His legal representatives were substituted as respondents in his place. But hereinafter in this judgment by the respondent would be meant Shri R. S. Bhatia who was the original respondent and the applicant under Section 33-C (2).

2. The claim of the respondent was that he was employed in service of the appellant in the year 1928 and was promoted as an Accountant in the year 1938 on which post he worked upto 8-10-1958. On and from 9-10-1958 he was given the additional duty as an officiating Manager on temporary basis in the Delhi Branch of the appellant Bank. He was suspended on the 4th of April, 1961 and was dismissed from service on the 22nd June, 1961. He filed an application under Section 33-A of the Act challenging the order of his dismissal. The respondent s said application was registered as I. D. No. 66/1962. Shri Anand Narayan Kaul, Presiding Officer of the Labour Court Delhi by his order dated the 23rd July, 1966 held in that case that the respondent who was applicant under Section 33-A of the Act was a workman. The appellant s contention in that behalf was not accepted. Eventually, however, the complaint under Section 33-A was dismissed on 24th July, 1969 on merits.

3. The respondent in his application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act claimed that under the Shastry Award which was published by the Government of India on the 26th March, 1953 he was entitled to some benefits which the appellant failed to pay. A statement of claim computed in terms of money was attached as Annexure A to the application. The claim made by the respondent was for the period 1954 to 1961 and the application under Section 33-C (2) was filed on the 10th July, 1968. The total claim made in the application was to the tune of Rs. l0,237.64.

4. The appellant resisted the claim of the respondent on several grounds. The Labour Court rejected the pleas set up by the appellant, allowed the application in part and computed the benefits from 1-4-1954 to 8-10-1958 at Rs. 5,676.22, and adding to that a sum of Rs. 347.61, certain amount for the period of the respondent s suspension in accordance with para. 557 of the Shastry Award, finally determined the amount payable to the respond at Rs. 6,023.83. The appellant has preferred this appeal in this Court by special leave. Its learned counsel has pressed for our consideration only three points in support of the appeal. None of the points has got any substance. We shall state the points one by one and give our reasons very briefly for their rejection.

5. The first point urged on behalf of the appellant is that the respondent was not workman within the meaning of the Act and that the Labour Court committed an error in saying that there was no evidence led on this issue and resting its judgment on the principles of res judicata on the basis of the decision of Shri Kaul in I. D. No. 66/1962. In our opinion the Labour Court rightly applied the principle of res judicata to the issue whether the respondent was a workman or not within the meaning of the Act. The same parties in I. D. No. 66/ 1962 jointed issue on the aforesaid question. A decision given by the competent Labour Court in that regard has rightly been held as a bar on the principles of res judicata in the trial of the same issue in the present proceeding. Moreover, we find that even apart from the previous order operating as res judicata, practically there was no evidence on behalf of the appellant in support of its case that the respondent was not a workman. The only evidence of M. W.1. was that in his capacity as an Accountant the respondent used to sign the salary bills of the staff including himself. But then he further st