1. An application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is barred by the principles of res judicata if the petitioner has already filed a civil suit challenging the same issue, which was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn. 2. A challenge to standing orders relating to the transfer of workmen cannot be made in a writ petition. The proper procedure for modification or interpretation of standing orders is provided under Sections 10 and 13-A of the Standing Orders Act, 1946.

J. V. Gupta, J.

1. This petition is directed against the order of Labour Court, Faridabad, dated October 22, 1986, Annexure P-2, passed under Sec.33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .

2. Petitioner P. C. Gupta, workman of the respondent management of Messrs. Bhartia Cutler Hammer Limited, Faridabad, was transferred from Faridabad to Bombay, vide order dated October 27, 1984. He failed to join there and when he was reminded on November 5, 1984, to proceed to Bombay, that was also ignored by him. Then he was charge-sheeted on January 4, 1985, to which he submitted his explanation. Shri B. R. Grover was appointed as the enquiry officer against him and despite repeated letters and reminders, Sri Gupta did not appear before him and he had to proceed ex parte against him and thus submitted his report, on February 25, 1985. On the basis of the report, Mr. Gupta was punished, vide order dated August 20, 1985, and was placed in a lower scale. Admittedly, he never challenged that order of his reversion. However, he filed a civil suit for a declaration and permanent injection challenging his transfer. The said civil suit was filed on July 1, 1985. In that suit, the ad interim order of injunction was declined by the trial Court and was maintained in appeal. Having failed to obtain the ad interim order of injunction, he got the suit dismissed as withdrawn on October 15, 1985. Copy of the order declining the ad interim injuction by the trial Court dated September 3, 1985, is Annexure P-1.

3. Having failed in the civil suit and getting the suit dismissed as withdrawn, he filed the present application under Sec.33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for computing the money or benefit which he was entitled to receive from his employer-respondent. According to his claim, the wages for the period from January 1, 1984 to October 31, 1985, have not been paid to him. He also claimed bonus for the year 1984-85, utensils for Holi festival and leave travel allowance also for 1984-85. In this manner, the amount calculated by him comes to Rs.15,930. This application was contested by the management. According to the reply filed, the workman was entitled to Rs.650 as bonus, Rs.35 towards utensils and Rs.360 for LTA and in this manner a total sum of Rs.1,048 was admitted. The other claim was denied. It was pointed out that the workman had filed a civil suit at Faridabad seeking injuction about his transfer order and his application for temporary injunction was dismissed by the trial Court on September 18, 1985, and then on October 15, 1985, he had withdrawn the suit and after that he had made the present application to harass the management. The said application was not maintainable and was also barred by the principles of res judicata. The Labour Court framed the

following two issues: (i) Whether the application is barred by the principles of res judicata. (ii) Whether the applicant is entitled to the amount claimed for?

4. The Labour Court found that the present application was barred by the principles of res judicata since the workman had already filed a civil suit which was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn. It was observed by the Labour Court that "it is the sad end of the application filed by Shri Gupta and for that he himself is responsible since he had been concealing even published facts of his past litigation". Under issue No.2 the amount of Rs.1,048 as admitted by the management was found due to the workman. Thus, the said application under Sec.33-C (2) was disposed of, vide order dated October 22, 1986, copy whereof is Annexure P-2.

5. The main challenge in this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner is to Clause 22 of the Standing Orders relating to the transfer of the workman on the allegation that the same was unreasonable, void and against the rules of natural justice. In support of this contention several rulings were cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. However, one of the preliminary objections which has bee