The Management of Mayiladuthurai Co-operative Primary Agricultural cum Rural Development Bank, Mayiladuthurai vs The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Cuddalore and V.S. Sivakumar

P. Sathasivam, J.—By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

The management of Mayildaduthurai Co.operative Primary Agricultural Cum Rural Development Bank through its Special Officer has filed the

above writ petition questioning the award passed in I.D.No.59 of 1998 dated 31.01.2000, on the file of Labour Court, Cuddalore.l

It is seen that the second respondent was working as Clerk from 12.12.1994, with the petitioner. Since his services were not regularised, he

was terminated from his service. Aggrieved by the same, he moved the Labour Court, Cuddalore in I.D.No.59 of 1998. By order dated

31.01.2000, the Labour Court granted a relief of reinstatement of service with back wages and continuity of service etc., Against the said order,

the Special Officer of the petitioner Bank has filed the present writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner as well as second respondent.

Even at the outset, Mr. Vijay Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent - workman by relying on a dismissal order of the

earlier writ petition No.10493 of 2000 dated 18.06.2001, as not pressed, in the absence of leave to challenge the same by another proceedings,

the present writ petition at the instance of the Special Officer is not maintainable. In support of his contention he relied on the decision of the

Supreme Court in the case of Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior and Others, .

Even in the present affidavit i.e., in para 4 it is admitted that the President of the petitioner Bank filed W.P.No.10493 of 2000 before this Court

challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 31.01.2000. It is further stated that the President had instructed the counsel on record to

withdraw the said writ petition without obtaining prior permission from the Deputy Registrar or Joint Registrar. It is also stated that counsel

appearing in W.P.No.10493 of 2000 had withdrawn the above writ petition on 18.06.2001, as not pressed. After saying so, the Special Officer

states that, since he had been specifically instructed to prosecute and file, another writ petition challenging the legality and correctness of the award

of the Labour Court dated 31.01.2000, has filed the present writ petition. It is clear that even according to the petitioner, the earlier writ petition

filed by the President of the petitioner Bank challenging the very same award has been dismissed as not pressed and it is also not disputed that no

leave was granted or obtained for challenging the same by filing another writ petition. In such a circumstance, as rightly contended by the second

respondent merely because there is a change in the Office of the management, namely, the Special Officer is permitted to challenge the award once

again in the present writ petition. In this regard it is relevant to refer the decision of the Apex Court, namely, Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State

Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior and Others, . The following conclusion of their Lordships is relevant,

The point for consideration is whether a petitioner after withdrawing a writ petition filed by him in the High Court under Art. 226 of the

Constitution of India without the permission to institute a fresh petition can file a fresh writ petition in the High Court under that Article. On this

point the decision in Daryao''s case (supra) is of no assistance. But we are of the view that the principle underlying R.1 of O.XXIII of the Code

should be extended in the interests of administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of res judicata but on

the ground of public policy as explained above. If would also discourage the litigant from indulging in bench-hunting tactics. In any event there is no

justifiable reason in such a case to permit a petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution

once again. While the withdrawal of a writ petition filed in High Court without permission to file a fresh writ petition may not bar other remedies

like a suit or a petitioner under Art. 32 of the Constitution since such withdrawal does not amount to res judicata, the remedy under Art. 226 of the

Constitution should be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of action relied on in the writ petition when he

withdraws it without such permission. In the instance case the High Court was right in holding that a fresh writ petition was not maintainable before

it in respect of the same subject-matter since the earlier writ petition had been withdrawn without permission to file a fresh petition. ......

In the light of the admitted factual position and in the absence of specific leave to prosecute and challenge the very same award of the Labour

Court and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, I hold that the present writ petition is not maintainable; accordingly, the

same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP., and WVMP., are also dismissed.