TMI Blog1977 (3) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion was allowed by the Land Tribunal, Kasaragod. An appeal from the order of the Tribunal was allowed by the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Kozhi-kode, and the application for purchase of kudikidappu was directed to be dismissed. The reason for the dismissal of the application ,was that two prior applications for purchase of the kudikidappu had been dismissed, O. A, No. 81 of 1970 which was dismissed on 15-11-1971, and O. A. 881 of 1971 dismissed on 11-11-1971. The latter application was dismissed on the ground that the applicant-petitioner had 3.66 acres of land on registry under the rules for assignment of Government lands for settlement of agricultural labourers which had been assigned in his favour in 1966, and therefore was disentitled under the Act to claim the status of a kudikidappukaran. 3. Counsel for the revision-petitioner contended that the assignment of Government lands to him had been cancelled on 11-8-1971 and this circumstance would make a difference which would enable him to maintain the present application and which would therefore enable him to steer clear of the bar of res judicata. He cited the decision of a learned Judge of this Court in Thomas v. Pun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rts of exclusive jurisdiction, like the revenue courts, land acquisition courts, administrative courts etc. In the course of its judgment, the Supreme Court referred to the classic observation of Sir Lawrence Jenkins who delivered the judgment of the Board in Sheoparsan Singh v. Ramnandan. 43 Ind App 91 (at p. 98) : (AIR 1916 PC 78) which reads as follows (at pp. 80-81 of AIR): In view of the arguments addressed to them, their Lordships desire to emphasize that the rule of res judicata, while founded on ancient precedent, is dictated by a wisdom which is for all time. 'It has been well said declared Lord Coke, interest reipublicae at sit finis litium-- otherwise, great oppression might be done under colour and pretence of law'. Though the rule of the Code may be traced to an English source, it embodies a doctrine in no way opposed to the spirit of the law as expounded by the Hindu commentators. Vijaneswara and Nilakantha include the plea of a former judgment amons those allowed by law, each citing for his purpose the text of Katyayana, who describes the plea thus: 'If a person, though defeated at law, sue again, he should be answered, you were defeated formerly' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l on equal terms, fair returns for their labour. It also seeks to prevent disputes between employer and employees, so that production might not be adversely affected and the larger interests of the society might not suffer. Now, if we are to hold that an adjudication loses its force when it is repudiated under Section 19 (6) and that the whole controversy is at large, then the result would be that far from reconciling themselves to the award and settling down to work it either party will treat it as a mere stage in the prosecution of a prolonged struggle, and far from bringing industrial peace the awards would turn out to be but truces giving the parties breathing time before resuming hostile action with renewed vigour. Here, then, is a direct pronouncement by the Supreme Court that the general principle of res judicata or collusiveness of a prior decision is founded on sound public policy and is of universal application and in particular is applicable to adjudication by tribunals also. The general principle laid down above was not in any way detracted from in the decision in Workmen of Balmer Lawrie and Co. v. Balmer Lawrie and Co. (AIR 1964 SC 728 : (1964) 5 SCR 344). There i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been generally deprecated by this Court for the reason that it is likely to disturb industrial peace and equilibrium. At the same time the Court has more than once pointed out the importance of remembering the dynamic nature of industrial relations. That is why the Court has specially in the more recent decisions refused to apply to industrial adjudications principles of res judicata that are meant and suited for ordinary civil litigations. Even where conditions of service have been changed only a few years before, industrial adjudication has allowed fresh changes if convinced of the necessity and justification of these by the existing conditions and circumstances. Where, as in the present case, in a previous Reference the Tribunal had refused the demand for change, there is even less reason for saying that that refusal should have any such binding effect , 5. Consistent with the principle of the above decisions and in no way at variance with them, it was observed by the Supreme Court in Workmen of the Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (AIR 1974 SC 1132 at p. 1140) as follows: 25. It is now well established that although the entire Civ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Cochin Lighterage Corporation v. Paul Abrao (1974 Ker LT 61), as a concession to the wide powers and the special nature of the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal, rather than as ruling out altogether the applicability of the principle of res judicata to them. As that question is not directly before us, we need not express our final opinion. 6. The question whether the rule of might and ought embodied in Explanation IV to Section 11 of the C. P. C. can be regarded as part of general rule of res judicata and whether it can have application to proceedings before these Tribunals does not directly arise for consideration on the facts of the present revision petition. Counsel for the revision petitioner fairly conceded before us that the facts and circumstances which were present at the time of the filing of the prior application, O. A. 881 of 1971, were precisely the same as those at the time of filing the application which has given rise to the present revision petition. That 'being so, there is no need to investigate or to pronounce on the question as to whether the failure to put forward any circumstance or contention in the prior application would debar the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
