The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata to industrial adjudication and the interpretation of the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

JUDGMENT :

C.K. Thakkar, C.J.—This Appeal is filed against an order dated April 24, 2001 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No. 1715 of 1999.

2. The appellant was in the employment of respondent No. 1. It was his case that his services were wrongly terminated. He, therefore, invoked the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and a reference was made by appropriate Government to the Labour Court, being Reference (IDA) No. 584 of 1991. During the pendency of the reference, the appellant made an application under Section (2) of Section 33-C of the Act, being Application (IDA) No. 169 of 1992. The said application came up for hearing before the 6th Labour Court, Bombay. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the employer that the applicant was not a workman within the meaning of the Act, and, hence, the application filed by him, under Section 33-C(2) was not maintainable. On the basis of the objection raised by the employer, an issue was framed by the Labour Court whether the applicant could be said to be workman as defined in the Act.

3. After appreciating the material on record, the 6th Labour Court, vide an order dated September 13, 1994, held that the applicant was Supervisor, and, hence, could not be said to be workman as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. The application was, hence, dismissed.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 564 of 1995. The said petition came up for hearing before the learned single Judge and on April 3, 1995, the following order was passed:

"Mr. Deshpande, learned advocate for the petitioner, states that he has received instructions from the Petitioner who is present in the Court to withdraw the Petition as the Petition has been settled out of Court, Mr. Parekh, the learned counsel for the Company, states that the entire matter has been settled out of Court and he has no objection to the Petitioner withdrawing the writ petition. Permission granted. Writ petition accordingly rejected."

5. Meanwhile, the Reference came up for consideration before the First Labour Court, Bombay, which was registered as Reference (IDA) No. 584 of 1991. The first respondent herein raised a preliminary contention that in view of the finding recorded by the 6th Labour Court, Bombay, in an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, that the applicant could not be said to be workman and against the said order a Petition was filed by the applicant, which was withdrawn, the doctrine of res judicata would apply. It was thereafter not open to the Labour Court to adjudicate the matter. The first Labour Court upheld the said contention and rejected the Reference observing that the finding recorded in Application (IDA) No. 169 of 1992 would operate as res judicata and, accordingly, the Reference was dismissed on November 12, 1998. Against the said order, the appellant petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1715 of 1999, and the learned single Judge upheld the award made by the Labour Court and dismissed the Petition on April 24, 2001.

6. We have heard Mr. Thiagarajan, appellant, party-in-person, as well as the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, it was strenuously argued by the appellant, party-in-person, that the petition filed by him was not withdrawn, but it was rejected by the Court. Reading the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in the earlier Petition, it is clear to us that a prayer was made on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant, who was appearing in the matter, to permit him to withdraw the Petition on the ground that the matter had been settled between the parties. On the basis of the prayer, the Court stated, "Permission granted". It was then stated, "Writ Petition accordingly rejected". In our opinion, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner did not withdraw the Petition but it was rejected by the Court. A prayer f