Bombay High Court
The General Secretary, Mah. Bhuvikas ... vs The Chairman And Managing Director, The ... on 14 November, 2025
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2025:BHC-AS:48903
8-wp5684-2011 with caw194-2019.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5684 OF 2011
The Chairman & Managing Director,
Maharashtra Land Development
Corporation Limited ... Petitioner
V/s.
General Secretary, Mah. Bhuvikas
Mahamandal Karmachari Sanghatana ... Respondent
ATUL
WITH
GANESH
KULKARNI CIVIL APPLICATION NO.194 OF 2019
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
IN
KULKARNI
Date: 2025.11.14
17:44:03 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO.5684 OF 2011
General Secretary, Mah. Bhuvikas
Mahamandal Karmachari Sanghatana ... Applicant
In the matter between
The Chairman & Managing Director,
Maharashtra Land Development
Corporation Limited ... Petitioner
V/s.
General Secretary, Mah. Bhuvikas
Mahamandal Karmachari Sanghatana ... Respondent
Mr. Sachin H. Kankal, AGP for the petitioner-State.
Mr. Laman Kalel for the respondent.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : NOVEMBER 14, 2025
P.C.:
1. The present petition invokes the supervisory jurisdiction of
this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The
challenge is to the Judgment and Award dated 7 October 2010
8-wp5684-2011 with caw194-2019.doc
passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 315 of
2003. The petitioner asserts that the Industrial Court has reopened
an issue already adjudicated by a Division Bench of this Court. The
substantive writ petition filed earlier by the respondent, arising
from the same cause of action and seeking the same relief, stood
dismissed on merits by Judgment dated 6 October 2008 in Writ
Petition No. 3627 of 2004. When a superior court has examined
the dispute and returned a finding on merits, the same dispute
cannot be revived before another forum. The finality attached to
judicial orders requires respect. The Industrial Court was duty
bound to bear this in mind.
2. The record shows that the petitioner had introduced a
Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the year 2000. The scheme
applied uniformly to its employees. The respondent Union opted
for the scheme. The employer accepted the request on 31 May
2002. Upon acceptance, the relationship between the parties stood
governed by the terms of the scheme. The consequences flowing
from the acceptance cannot be ignored. A party cannot take
benefit under a scheme and thereafter seek to reopen settled
rights.
3. After securing acceptance under the scheme, the respondent
sought absorption in service. The employer declined the request.
That refusal led to the filing of the complaint before the Industrial
Court. The crucial fact is that at the time of refusal, the respondent
had already taken benefit of the scheme. Absorption would have
required existence of a subsisting contract of employment. Once
the scheme was accepted, the contract stood discharged. The
8-wp5684-2011 with caw194-2019.doc
demand for absorption, therefore, lacked legal foundation.
4. The respondent did not stop at this stage. The respondent
approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 3627 of 2004
seeking the same relief. The Division Bench considered the
pleadings and dismissed the writ petition by its Judgment dated 6
October 2008. The Division Bench recorded that it found no merit
in the petition and refused to interfere. This was a dismissal on
merits. It binds the parties. The law does not permit a party to
pursue the very same grievance before another forum after a
rejection on merits by a superior court. The respondent was aware
of this dismissal yet pursued the complaint. The Industrial Court
failed to consider this binding circumstance.
5. The learned advocate for the petitioner has also relied on a
subsequent decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 10179 of
2018 decided on 16 June 2025. In that case this Court refused
relief to an individual workman. The Court noted that an earlier
writ petition filed by the same respondent in Writ Petition No.
5684 of 2011 had already been dismissed. The Court treated this
as an additional factor against the claim. The principle is simple.
Once a court of competent jurisdiction has adjudicated the dispute
on merits, the issue cannot be reopened in a parallel proceeding.
This reinforces the position in the present case.
6. When the Division Bench of this Court has already
considered the respondent's claim in a writ petition seeking
identical relief and has dismissed it on merits, the Industrial Court
could not have granted relief in a manner contrary to that binding
8-wp5684-2011 with caw194-2019.doc
decision. The Industrial Court ought to have appreciated that its
jurisdiction is subordinate and that its orders must remain
consistent with those of the superior court. Judicial hierarchy
exists to ensure certainty and coherence in the administration of
justice. The impugned Judgment and Award ignores this
obligation. It travels against the decision of the Division Bench
and, therefore, cannot stand.
7. Hence, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b).
8. Accordingly, the civil application also stands disposed of as
infructuous.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
