Principle Of Res Judicata Equally Applicable To Proceedings Before Labour Court: Punjab & Haryana HC
The Punjab & Haryana High Court observed that the principle of res judicata is equally applicable to the proceedings before the Labour Court.
The Court was hearing a bunch of Petitions seeking setting aside of Award where the Labour Court had answered the reference against the Petitioner.
The bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal observed, “Subsequent payment of differential amount of wages under 1948 Act, did not create fresh cause of action or wipe out principle of res judicata. The said principle is a universal principle and it is meant to end the litigation. If that principle is not applied, there would be no end to litigation and losing party would file repeated claims. The said principle is equally applicable to proceedings before Labour Court.”
Advocate SK Guleria appeared for the Appellant and Additional Standing Counsel Aman Bahri appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The Petitioner worked at Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh until his termination. He filed a demand notice which led to a Labour Court hearing in which the Court ruled against him, finding he was hired by a contractor, not GMCH, and thus not terminated by GMCH. Separately, a dispute over minimum wages was heard by the High Court, which ordered GMCH to pay differential wages to contract workers. The Petitioner pursued another claim in the Labour Court, which was dismissed. The Court held that the minimum wage payment did not establish an employer-employee relationship with GMCH, and ruled that the claim was barred by res judicata.
The Court said that the Labour Court has dismissed the claim of the Petitioner on the ground that payment of wages under the 1948 Act does not change the status of the workman.
“Mere payment under the said Act by Management does not make the workman a worker of the Management.”, the Court observed.
While noting the dismissal of the first claim where it was categorically held that the worker had failed to prove his appointment and termination by GMCH, the Court said, “the second reference merely on account of payment of the differential amount of wages under the 1948 Act was not maintainable.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petitions.
Cause Title: Swarup Prakash v. Presiding Officer, Labour Industrial Tribunal (Neutral Citation: 2024:PHHC:139833)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate SK Guleria
Respondent: Additional Standing Counsel Aman Bahri, Advocates Rohit Kaushik, Umesh Pandey, Ravi Sodhi, M.S. Sidhu and Deepak Malhotra
