Claims of retrenched workmen are not maintainable if previously adjudicated and found compliant with statutory requirements, upholding the principle of res judicata.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present petitions have been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 3rd May 2019, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi, vide which, the applications filed by the Management for rejecting the claim of the Workmen have been allowed, and the claims of the workmen have been dismissed as not maintainable.

3. Ld. counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners have been non-suited on the ground of res-judicata. He submits that the Labour Court could not have considered the said plea of res-judicata at the initial stage. Ld. Counsel relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4665/2021, decided on 9th August 2021), to argue that res-judicata ought to be a plea which should have been considered after all the pleadings are complete and issues are framed in the matter before the Labour Court.

4. Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent-School has, on the other hand, taken the Court through the previous round of proceedings before the Education Tribunal and the resultant orders passed in the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 4335/2017 titled Rampal Singh v. The Director of Education and Anr. and the consequent LPA, bearing LPA No. 611/2017 to argue that the question of retrenchment under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 1947 (hereinafter referred as "the Act"), has already been adjudicated by this Court. He submits that the same ground which is sought to be alleged in these writ petitions, has already been raised, considered and decided. According to him, the Petitioners are attempting to obtain a second chance in respect of the same very objections to argue that the retrenchment is illegal, and the Labour Court has rightly held that the claims of the Workman are not maintainable.

5. Heard ld. counsels for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the ld. Single Judge's order dated 19th May 2017 in W.P.(C) 4335/2017 titled Rampal Singh v. The Director of Education and Anr., and connected matters, which involve the very same Petitioners, shows that the issue considered by the ld. Single Judge in that case was as to whether there was proper adherence to provisions of Section 25F of the Act, prior to the retrenchment of the Petitioners. On this issue, the findings of the ld. Single Judge are as under:

"4. The only plea urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents have not complied with the provisions of Section 25F(c), which reads as under:-

"(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government [or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]."

5. He states, that it was required for the School to give notice to the appropriate Government in a particular format.

6. On a specific query to the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether such a plea was taken before the Tribunal in the manner now urged by him, the answer is in the negative. He also states that the plea is purely a legal issue and can be considered by the Court in these Writ Proceedings. I am unable to agree with the only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, inasmuch as there was no plea before the Tribunal in the manner it has been urged by the learned counsel before me. The ground with regard to Section 25F was in the following manner:

"because the respondent No.2 retrenched the appellant under Section 2 5(f)