The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of finality of litigation and the prevention of abuse of legal process. The court emphasized that once a claim has attained finality, repeated challenges to the same claim are impermissible and constitute an abuse of legal process.

JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral). - Present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.07.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No. 1 by which the claim of the petitioner for the grant of salary from March, 2007 till February, 2010 has been rejected and order dated 13.12.2019 (Annexure P-4) passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1936') as well as order dated 31.07.2020 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana rejecting the civil appeal preferred by the petitioner against the above mentioned two orders i.e. Annexures P-3 and P-4.

The facts leading to filing of the present revision petition are as under :-

The petitioner was appointed as a Senior Laboratory Technician by respondent No. 1 on 01.06.1996. He was charge-sheeted by his employer more than once and initiation of the said disciplinary proceedings was challenged by the petitioner before the Civil Court, Ludhiana. The trial Court directed the petitioner to participate in those disciplinary proceedings vide order dated 24.03.2007. Aggrieved against the said order of trial Court, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge and vide order dated 09.08.2007 Lower Appellate Court upheld the order dated 24.03.2007.

Petitioner raised a demand notice on 05.03.2008 seeking wages and on rejection of the said demand, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute for his entitlement of wages. Respondent No. 1 herein, contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he was not discharging his duties and hence, he is not entitled for the wages. Ultimately, the Labour Court on 20.10.2009 rejected the claim of petitioner but directed the management to complete the enquiry against him within a period of two months. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing CWP No.16272 of 2009, which was disposed of by this Court upholding the order passed by the Labour Court.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 15 (3) of the Act of 1936 before the competent authority. During the said proceedings, the petitioner was directed to approach the Labour Court, where his main dispute was pending by filing appropriate application. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application under Section 33(c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 1947 Act'), wherein the petitioner was informed that his services have been terminated.

Keeping in view the said situation, the main case under Section 2-A as well as application filed by the petitioner under Section 33(c) (2) of the 1947 Act was withdrawn by the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy.

Thereafter, the petitioner again approached the authorities under the Act of 1936 by filing an application under Section 15(3) on 08.07.2010 seeking the payment of the wages from March 2007 till February, 2010, i.e. upto the date his services were terminated. The said claim was rejected by the competent authority under the Payment of Wages Act on 27.08.2010 on the ground of 'No Work No Pay'. The said order passed by the authorities under the Act of 1936 was challenged by the petitioner by way of appeal before the Additional District Judge, but without any success, as the said appeal was dismissed on 23.05.2011.

Not being satisfied, the petitioner filed a Civil Revision No. 3647 of 2011 before this Court, which was also dismissed on 01.06.2012 holding that he is not entitled for the wages keeping in view the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Act of 1936. The relevant part of the said order is as under :-

“A perusal of the above said order indicates that despite the orders passed by the Lower appellate court dated 20.10.2009, the petitioner had failed to participate in the enquiry proceedings, as a result of which the respondent- management had completed the enquiry proceedings ex-parte.

The petitioner having not remained on duty w.