The principle of constructive res judicata bars a party from obtaining a second judgment for the same relief on the same cause of action.

1. - The third respondent Shri Rama Kishan s/o Shri Ghewar Lal Goyal was appointed Junior Accountant in Antodaya Scheme. The scheme came to an end and his service stood terminated as a result thereof w.e.f. 15-7-84. Respondent No. 3 was offered the job of L.D.C. but he refused to accept the same. Thereafter the third respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 267/85. Third respondent prayed for the following relief:-

" 15/A. That, by appropriate, writ, order or direction this Hon'ble Court may he pleased to declare that order of termination dated 31st October, 1984, Annexure-6. is illegal and may be quashed. The respondents be directed to absorb the petitioner on a post equivalent to the post of Junior Accountant and if it is considered that petitioner is entitled to be appointed only in the Respondent Bank then Respondent Bank may be directed to absorb the petitioner on a post equivalent to the post of Junior Accountant or at least to the post of Supervisor and it may be directed to do so on and from the date the termination of the services of the petitioner was brought about."

2. After hearing the parties, the aforesaid writ petition was rejected by order dated 8-5-86. The third respondent preferred a special appeal before a Division Bench of this Court, which was registered as D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 2/89. The said appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench vide its judgment dated 8-8-89. As a result of the dismissal of the special appeal, the order of termination passed against the third respondent was upheld. The third respondent after the dismissal of his special appeal. filed an application on 21-9-89 under section 28-A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. 1958 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') before the fourth respondents claiming the relief that he should be paid wages from 1-7-84 and he be taken back in service and he should be declared to be in service right from that date. In other words, he has claimed the relief that his termination from service was illegal. bad and without authority of law and be set aside and he should he deemed to be in service from that date and is entitled for all service benefits. As the application was not filed within the period of limitation prescribed under section 28-A(2) of the Act within thirty days of the receipt of the order of dismissal or discharge, the third respondent moved an application for condonation of delay. The ground taken for condonation of delay is that his services have been terminated vide order dated 30-10-84 w.e.f. 15-7-84 and for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the delay in filing the application he condoned. The affidavit states that he was appointed on 6-3-80 by orders of the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies,Jodhpur camp Nagaur, that his services are terminated by order dated 31-10-84 from retrospective date i.e. 15-7-84 against which he had preferred a writ petition in the High Court but his writ petition was ultimately dismissed and against the dismissal of the writ petition, he preferred a special appeal which was also dismissed on 8-8-89 on technical grounds. He had applied for the certified copy on 14-8-89. The copy was delivered to him on 26-8-89 and thereafter he has immediately moved an application under section 28-A of the Act. In the aforesaid circumstances, the delay in filing the application be condoned.

3. The petitioner filed his reply raising objection that the application under section 28-A is not maintainable and the Prescribed Authority, Bikaner, under the Rajasthan Shops & Commercial Establishments Act, has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under section 28-A of the Act. It is also alleged that the application is hopelessly barred by limitation. Both these objections have been overruled by respondent No. 4, Prescribed Authority and, therefore, the present petition is filed by the Project Officer-cum-Secret