Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose out of strained industrial relations at Horizon Beach Hotel. Respondent No. 1 ran the hotel; petitioner No. 2 was an employee and petitioner No. 1 a union claiming to represent workmen. In June 1999, differences erupted between management and workmen. The recognised union, Bharatiya Kamagar Karmachari Sangh, filed Complaint ULP No. 730 of 1999 alleging unfair labour practices under item 6 of Schedule II and item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act, accusing the management of illegal lockout and non-implementation of settlement. The management filed a counter complaint. On 24 February 2000, the recognised union withdrew its complaint unconditionally, stating that after learning the true facts it was satisfied no lockout had been effected. The Industrial Court disposed of the complaint for want of prosecution. Subsequently, some workmen, claiming to have resigned from the recognised union and joined petitioner No. 1 union, filed a second complaint (ULP No. 405 of 2000) alleging the same unfair labour practices. The Industrial Court, after hearing, dismissed the second complaint as not maintainable on the ground that the unconditional withdrawal of the earlier complaint by the recognised union barred re-agitation of the same grievances. The High Court was called upon to decide the correctness of that order. The respondents initially raised res judicata but later gave up that plea. The High Court noted that res judicata under Section 11 CPC requires a former decision on merits; since the first complaint was withdrawn without any adjudication, res judicata did not apply. However, the Court invoked the principle underlying Order 23 Rule 1 CPC, which prevents a plaintiff from filing a fresh suit on the same subject matter after having unconditionally withdrawn an earlier suit without the court’s leave. This principle, the Court held, is based on public policy and extends to all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, including complaints before the Industrial Court under the MRTU & PULP Act. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, (1987) 1 SCC 5, the Court concluded that the second complaint was barred. The writ petition was dismissed and the Industrial Court’s order upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Withdrawal of Suit - Order 23 Rule 1 CPC - Public Policy - High Court held that the principle underlying Order 23 Rule 1 CPC, which bars a fresh suit after unconditional withdrawal without leave, is founded on public policy and extends to proceedings before Industrial Court under the MRTU & PULP Act - Earlier complaint by recognised union unconditionally withdrawn without leave; hence second complaint on identical allegations and reliefs was not maintainable (Paras 9-10).
B) Res Judicata - Section 11 CPC - Applicability - Withdrawal without adjudication on merits does not attract bar of res judicata - Since the first complaint was withdrawn without any decision on merits, the second complaint was not barred by res judicata or analogous principles (Paras 6, 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a second complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act is maintainable when an earlier complaint filed by the recognised union on the same cause of action was unconditionally withdrawn without leave to file a fresh complaint
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Industrial Court's order dated 28 February 2002, holding that the second complaint was not maintainable. The Court held that the principle underlying Order 23 Rule 1 CPC, being based on public policy, applies to proceedings under the MRTU and PULP Act, and the unconditional withdrawal of the earlier complaint without leave barred the subsequent complaint.
Law Points
- principle of res judicata not applicable when earlier complaint withdrawn without decision on merits
- principle of estoppel
- principle contained in Order 23 Rule 1 CPC applies to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings as matter of public policy
- unconditional withdrawal of complaint without leave to file fresh complaint precludes filing of subsequent complaint on same subject matter
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (08) 191
Writ Petition No. 2670 of 2002
Gayatri Singh for petitioner, C.U. Singh with M. D’Souza for respondents
Maharashtra Kamgar Sangharsh Samiti & Anr.
Horizon, the Beach Hotel & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Challenge to Industrial Court order dismissing complaint as not maintainable
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of Industrial Court order dated 28 February 2002 and a declaration that the second complaint was maintainable
Filing Reason
Industrial Court held that the second complaint was barred by estoppel and principles analogous to Order 23 Rule 1 CPC after the earlier complaint was unconditionally withdrawn by the recognised union
Previous Decisions
First complaint ULP No. 730/1999 filed by recognised union was unconditionally withdrawn on 24 February 2000 and disposed of by Industrial Court; second complaint ULP No. 405/2000 filed on 28 April 2000 was dismissed as not maintainable on 28 February 2002; earlier writ petition No. 2851/2001 disposed of with direction to decide maintainability
Issues
Whether the second complaint under the MRTU and PULP Act is maintainable after the recognised union unconditionally withdrew the earlier complaint on the same cause of action without leave to file a fresh complaint
Whether the principle contained in Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to proceedings before the Industrial Court under the MRTU and PULP Act
Whether the bar of res judicata applies when the earlier proceeding was withdrawn without adjudication on merits
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners contended that the second complaint was filed by individual workmen and a different union and was not barred by the withdrawal of the recognised union
Petitioners argued that the Industrial Court erred in applying estoppel and in dismissing the complaint as not maintainable
Respondents contended that the second complaint was barred on principles analogous to res judicata and estoppel
Respondents argued that Order 23 Rule 1 CPC bars a fresh complaint on the same cause of action after unconditional withdrawal without leave
Ratio Decidendi
The principle underlying Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which bars a fresh suit after unconditional withdrawal without leave, is based on public policy and applies to proceedings before Industrial Court under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act. Consequently, where a recognised union files a complaint on behalf of workmen and subsequently unconditionally withdraws it without obtaining leave to file a fresh complaint, a second complaint on the same cause of action by individual workmen or another union is not maintainable.
Judgment Excerpts
In my view, the principle of Order 23 Rule 1 would apply, as matter of public policy even to all the judicial or quasi judicial proceedings taken before any court or authority even if it is not governed strictly by the strict rules of procedure contained in the Code of Civil Procedure.
Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure which statutorily incorporates the principle of res-judicata says that no court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a formal suit between the same parties or between the parties under whom they claim and which has been heard and finally decided by the court in the earlier suit.
Procedural History
On 10 July 1999, Bharatiya Kamagar Karmachari Sangh, the recognised union, filed Complaint ULP No. 730/1999 alleging unfair labour practices under Item 6, Schedule II and Item 9, Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The respondent management filed a counter complaint ULP No. 828/1999. On 24 February 2000, the recognised union unconditionally withdrew its complaint without leave to file afresh, and the Industrial Court disposed of it for want of prosecution. On 28 April 2000, petitioner No. 2 along with 29 other workmen filed Complaint ULP No. 405/2000 on identical grounds. The Industrial Court, after permitting evidence and hearing, dismissed the second complaint as not maintainable by order dated 28 February 2002. This writ petition was filed to challenge that order. During the pendency, an earlier writ petition (No. 2851/2001) arising from an interim application was disposed of with a direction to decide maintainability. The High Court heard the present writ petition and delivered the instant judgment on 5 August 2005.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act: Item 6 of Schedule II, Item 9 of Schedule IV
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 11, Order 23 Rule 1
