High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

Application Of Res Judicata Is Fundamentally Flawed When The Previous Decisions Were Made By Bodies Without Proper Jurisdiction: Punjab And Haryana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has overturned a Labour Court decision that denied reinstatement to Ms. Anita, a former employee of Golden Line Canteen, Ambala, on the grounds of res judicata. The judgment, delivered by Justice Sanjay Vashisth, highlights significant jurisdictional errors in previous adjudications by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT-LC), necessitating a fresh examination of the termination’s legality.

Ms. Anita, employed as a Clerk-cum-Computer Operator-cum-Sales Girl at the Golden Line Canteen, Ambala Cantt., was terminated orally on August 21, 2003, without notice, salary in lieu thereof, or retrenchment compensation. Her initial appeal to the CAT was dismissed in January 2004, which held that she was not a Central Government employee and thus not entitled to employment protection. Subsequent proceedings before the CGIT-LC and Labour Court also ruled against her, applying the principle of res judicata based on the CAT’s earlier decision.

Principle of Res Judicata: The High Court critiqued the Labour Court’s application of res judicata, which had been used to bar Ms. Anita’s claim. Justice Vashisth pointed out that the Labour Court erroneously relied on the decisions of CAT and CGIT-LC, which lacked jurisdiction over the petitioner’s employment status. “The application of res judicata is fundamentally flawed when the previous decisions were made by bodies without proper jurisdiction,” he emphasized.

Jurisdictional Errors: Addressing the jurisdictional aspect, Justice Vashisth highlighted the Supreme Court’s ruling in R.R. Pillai, clarifying that employees of Unit Run Canteens are not Central Government employees. Therefore, the CAT’s decision, which had dismissed Ms. Anita’s claim on the grounds of her employment status, was declared a nullity. “The Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision is inherently void, having been made without jurisdiction,” noted Justice Vashisth.

Delay and Legal Remedy: The High Court also acknowledged the prolonged legal struggle faced by Ms. Anita, which spanned over two decades. Invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Court protected her right to pursue a remedy, considering her bona fide belief in the jurisdiction of the previous forums. “The time spent in pursuing these proceedings is to be excluded from the limitation period, given the bona fide belief in their jurisdiction,” the judgment stated.

Legal Reasoning: Justice Vashisth extensively discussed the principles of natural justice and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which were overlooked in the previous adjudications. “The very essence of the Industrial Disputes Act is to protect the rights of workers against arbitrary and high-handed termination,” the judgment remarked, underlining the necessity for proper adjudication of the termination’s compliance with Section 25-F of the Act.

“The finding recorded by the CAT, while deciding OA No. 822/HR/2003, is meaningless and at best carries the status of nullity for all times,” Justice Vashisth asserted, emphasizing the nullification of the CAT’s decision post the R.R. Pillai ruling.

The High Court’s decision to remand the case for fresh adjudication by the Labour Court underscores a critical examination of jurisdictional competence in legal proceedings. By setting aside the previous award and ordering a swift resolution within a year, the judgment aims to mitigate the prolonged suffering of the petitioner, reinforcing the legal framework for addressing employment disputes justly.

Date of Decision: May 13, 2024

Ms. Anita vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and another

Similar News