ORDER

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against award dated 21.7.2022 passed by Labour Court, Jabalpur in case no. 36/2016/IDR, by which, the Labour Court has directed the petitioner to reinstate respondent no.1 without back wages but a compensation of Rs.20,000/- has been awarded.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that in the year 1999 the petitioner had terminated services of 393 employees in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. Accordingly, respondent no.1 along with other similarly situated employees approached this Court by filing W.P.No.2010/1999. The said writ petition was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 29.7.1999. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent no.1 and other similarly situated employees preferred multiple Letter Patent Appeals. The appeal filed by respondent no.1 was registered as LPA No.294/99. All LPAs including that of filed by respondent no.1 were disposed of by order dated 30.10.2002 with specific findings that the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, can consider the matter whether the appointments have been done in accordance with Rules or not and necessary factors can be looked into and the principle of natural justice be followed and accordingly, the order passed by learned Single Judge was set-aside and the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation was directed to issue notice to the employees whose services have been terminated within two months. In addition to the issuance of the show cause notice, notices of show cause be served on the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants also conceded to that it would amount to issue of notice to the appellants. The employees were directed to submit their representations to the said authority within a period of eight weeks therefrom and thereafter, the Commissioner shall pass a cogent and reasoned order. These directions were made with a specific observation that no right shall accrue in favour of the petitioners to lodge their claim that they should be taken back in the services and allowed to work. It was also observed that petitioners / employees were basically daily wages workers and the Commissioner was directed to pass appropriate order keeping in view the circular and executive instructions and any such document which govern the field.

He shall keep in mind that he has to play a fair role and shall function independently without being influenced. The Commissioner shall also bear in mind that in a welfare State back-door entry is not appreciated as it corrodes the base of public interest.

3. It is submitted that thereafter, the petitioner did not file any SLP before the Supreme Court and accordingly, the order passed by the Division Bench in LPA No.294/99 became final. It appears that thereafter respondent no.1 approached Assistant Labour Commissioner who on failure of reconciliation proceedings, referred the matter to the Labour Court. The Labour Court by the impugned award has allowed the statement of claim filed by respondent no.1 only on the ground of discrimination and violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and direction was given to reinstate respondent no.1. However, as respondent no.1 had approached the ALC / Labour Court belatedly, therefore, the back wages were not awarded but a compensation of Rs.20,000/- was awarded.

4. Challenging the order passed by the Labour Court, it is submitted by Shri Pare that in fact the award passed by the Labour Court is barred by doctrine of res judicata. The matter was already decided by the High Court and if respondent no.1 was not satisfied with the direction given by the High Court then either he should have approached the Supreme Court or he should have filed contempt petition for not complying the direction given by the