( 1 ) WRIT Petition No. 21158 of 1998 is filed by the management, while Writ Petition No. 22175 of 1998 is filed by the workman being aggrieved by the Award dated 12-11-1997 in I. D. No. 99 of 1995 on the file of the additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional labour Court, Hyderabad.

( 2 ) THE only question that falls for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the Labour Court can take up the issue of validity of the domestic enquiry, which aspect was already dealt with by the national Tribunal while examining the application filed by the Management under section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 (for brevity the Act ) again ?

( 3 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the entire material on record including the Order dated 21-7-1997 and the impugned Award of the labour Court.

( 4 ) THE Labour Court while dealing with the validity of the domestic enquiry held that since the said question has already been examined by the National Tribunal while granting permission under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act, the same cannot be gone into by it and as such, held that no such question can be raised again and it amounts to res judicata. I am afraid that such a proposition was taken up on its own by the Labour Court and answered the issue. Firstly, the question of res judicata is not recognized by the labour jurisprudence unless and until it is shown that it is a vexatious litigation to scuttle any attempt at raising industrial disputes repeatedly in defiance of operative settlements and awards, but this highly technical concept of civil justice may be kept in precise confined limits in the field of industrial arbitration, which must as far as possible be kept free from such technicalities, which thwart resolution of industrial disputes (See Workmen v. Hindustan Lever Limited, 1984 (1) LLJ 388 ). The learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 22175 of 1998 also placed before this Court the Order dated 13-5-1991 in Approval Application No. 31 of 1989 on the file of the National Tribunal at Bombay, wherein the application of the management under Section 33 (2) (b) of the act was considered and approval was granted. But, in the entire order of approval, there is not even a whisper that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management was valid and justified. As a routine course of examining the aspect as to granting of approval under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act, the Labour Court made several observations, but none of those observations would justify to say that the National Tribunal has examined the aspect as to the validity of the domestic enquiry itself.

( 5 ) THE finding of the Labour Court dated 21-7-1997 upholding the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management and the dismissal of the petition filed by the workman in I. A. No. 257 of 1997 seeking to review the order passed on the validity of the domestic enquiry, will not have any bearing in deciding the issue in this lis, since the workman is entitled to question the validity of the domestic enquiry along with the Award passed in the I. D.

( 6 ) IT is well settled that the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act is only to examine the findings of the Enquiry Officer in order to find out whether any prima facie case is made out or whether the findings of the Enquiry officer are perverse and the validity of the removal order would still be liable to be decided in a reference under Section 2-A or Section 10 of the Act at the instance of the workman.

( 7 ) A similar issue cropped for consideration before a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Management of orissa R. T. C. Ltd. v. M. V. Rao and another, 1993 (1) LLJ 468, wherein it was observed as under:"3. Mr. Murthy appearing for the employer in O. J. C. No. 2938 of 1998 argues with vehemence that in view of the order of approval of the Tribunal under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which was confirmed by this C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document