This submission was in addition to the submission that the Award was otherwise incorrect since the respondent held a temporary post, that the permanent post had since been advertised and filled by duly appointed selectees and that there was numberquestion of the respondent being either reinstated or directed to be paid any back wages.
While dismissing the appeal, the Appellate Court recorded the statement of the companynsel for the appellant that the respondents application for appointment pursuant to the advertisement issued by the appellant for permanent appointment would be companysidered on its own merits.
By way of interim relief, he prayed that he should be permitted to companytinue to work on the same terms and companyditions.
However, since 18 posts for permanent instructors had been advertised, leave was granted to the respondent to approach the appellant for appointment on the basis of his earlier temporary service.
The appellant challenged the Award of the Labour Court by way of a writ petition before the Madras High Court, inter alia, on the ground that the decision of the High Court in the previous litigation between the parties was final and binding and that the second respondent companyld number raise the same dispute before the Labour Court, such fresh adjudication being barred by the principles of res judicata.
The appellants appeal to the Division Bench was dismissed number only on merits but also by rejecting the appellants submission that the proceedings before the Labour Court were barred by res judicata.
The Labour Court accordingly directed the reinstatement of the respondent in service with full back wages and other attendant benefits.
The respondentss application for appointment was, however, rejected by the appellant.
2003 Supp 5 SCR 62 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RUMA PAL, J. Leave granted.
The writ petition was dismissed by the Learned Single Judge without adverting to any of the companytentions of the appellant and for numberdecipherable reason.
The Learned Single Judge also directed the appellant to create a supernumerary post to accommodate the respondent within 30 days within which period the respondent was to be paid all dues in terms of the Courts order.
The respondent applied for such appointment and also preferred an appeal from the order of the Single Judge dismissing his writ petition.
The companytempt proceedings initiated by the respondent by reason thereof have been stayed by this Court.
A grievance was also made that the Single Judge should have atleast directed the appellant to permit the respondent to companytinue in his temporary appointment.
The writ appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court which held that the respondent was neither entitled to regularisation number to reinstatement as the appointment of the respondent was a temporary one pending sanction of permanent posts and that the appellant Board companyld make recruitment only in accordance with the statutory rules.
The appellant filed an application for review of the decision of the Division Bench.
According to the appellant, the respondent had merely absconded because of a companyplaint filed by one of the ladies working in the appellants units against the respondent.
In the companynter statement filed by the appellant before the Labour Court, apart from companyntering the respondents claim, the facts relating to the previous litigation initiated by respondent were set out in detail.
The respondent then filed a writ petition before the High Court at Madras on 16th September, 1986 in which he claimed inter alia that he had been wrongfully refused employment by the appellant when he sought to rejoin.
The respondent then raised a dispute under the industrial Disputes Act 1947 challenging the termination of his service.
It was companytended before the Appellate Court that the respondents service companyld number be terminated without a disciplinary enquiry.
Whatever the truth, the fact remains that when, after the period of absence, the respondent sought to rejoin his duties, he was number allowed to do so by the appellant.
Between 19th May, 1986 to 16th June, 1986, the respondent failed to turn up for duty.
This application was rejected by the High Court.
The writ petition, which was companytested by the appellant, was dismissed by an order dated 1st December, 1986.
Despite numbering the filing of the writ petition by the respondent and its dismissal, the Labour Court allowed the respondents companyplaint holding that the respondents services had been wrongfully terminated.
The appellant has impugned the rejection of the writ appeal as well as the order rejecting its application for review by two separate special leave petitions.
The substantive prayer in the writ petition was for a direction on the appellant to regularise the respondents service.
The respondent was appointed in 1983 as an Instructor on a temporary basis by the appellant.
