JUDGMENT

BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J.:— The short question that arises for decision in this appeal by special leave is whether the dismissal in limine of a Special Leave Petition filed before this Court by a party challenging the award of a Labour Court would preclude the said party from subsequently approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to set aside the said award.

2. Having regard to the nature of the question arising for determination, it is not necessary for us to set out in detail the facts of the case and a brief narration thereof would suffice. Respondent No. 3 was appointed in 1963 as a Sales Officer in the service of the appellant - The Indian Oil Corporation. He was dismissed from service in 1969 on charges of misconduct but was subsequently reinstated under orders of the Labour Court, Patna before which an industrial dispute had been raised. During the period when Respondent No. 3 was out of employment consequent on his dismissal, some of his juniors had been promoted to higher posts. Subsequent to his reinstatement, Respondent No. 3 claimed that he was entitled to be given promotion with effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted and also to be given the higher pay scale of Rs. 1025-1625 from such date. This claim was not accepted by the appellant and that again gave rise to another industrial dispute. The State Government of Bihar referred the said dispute to the Labour Court, Patna on September 26, 1980. The Labour Court by its award dated March 11, 1983 held that Respondent No. 3 was entitled to be paid salary in the scale of Rs. 1025-1625 with effect from December 30, 1970, that being the date on which his juniors were promoted to that scale. It further directed that the 3rd Respondent should be promoted from grade B to grade C and should also be given the benefit of revision in the pay scales of those grades.

3. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant moved this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution by filing Special Leave Petition No. 9147 of 1983. Respondent. No. 3 had filed a caveat before this Court and he was represented by Counsel at the time when the special leave petition was heard. This Court on September 9, 1483 dismissed the special leave petition by a non-speaking order, which was in the following terms :-

"The special leave petition is dismissed."

4. Thereafter the appellant approached the High Court of Patna by preferring a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the aforesaid award of the Labour Court dated March 11, 1983. The High Court by its order dated January 31, 1984 admitted the writ petition and granted interim stay of enforcement of the award. Thereupon the 3rd Respondent came up to this Court challenging the order of the High Court admitting the writ petition and granting interim stay of the award. The principal contention taken in the special leave petition was that in view of the order of this Court dated September 9, 1983 dismissing the special leave petition (S.L.P. No. 2770 of 1984) filed by the appellant against the award of the Labour Court, it was not legally open to the appellant, thereafter, to approach to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the very same award. This Court after hearing both sides, dismissed the special leave petition filed by the 3rd Respondent by the following order dated August 17, 1984 :-

"Special Leave Petition is dismissed. We hope that the High Court will dispose of the writ petition as expeditiously as possible preferably within four months from today. In the meantime the respondents will deposit in the High Court a further sum of Rs. 10,000/-(apart from Rs. 5000/- which has already been deposited towards the cost of the petitioner) within two weeks from today, which amount the petitioner will be at liberty to withdraw in case the Writ Petition will not be disposed of within four months from today."

5. Subsequently, when the writ petition came up for final