A second round of litigation for the same cause of action is barred by Res Judicata.

The applicant was engaged as a casual labourer in 1996.

Claiming to have completed 240 days of work, he sought Temporary Status Mazdoor (TSM) status. Following a long litigation history involving the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (2003), the Odisha High Court (2007), and the Supreme Court (2020), the respondents conferred temporary status on 19 workmen (including the applicant) in 2009 pursuant to interim judicial directions.

The Supreme Court eventually disposed of the Civil Appeal in 2020, declining to interfere with the status quo of granted temporary status.

Following a failed contempt petition in the High Court in 2023, the applicant filed this Original Application (O.A.) seeking retrospective conferment of temporary status from his original date of eligibility based on departmental circulars from 2000 and 2001.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to retrospective conferment of Temporary Status from the date of eligibility after the issue was previously litigated up to the Supreme Court.

2. Whether the O.A. is barred by the principles of limitation, res judicata, and the doctrine of finality.

The Tribunal applied the principle of Res Judicata and the maxim Nemo Debet Bis Vexari Pro Una Et Eadem Causa (no one should be vexed twice for the same cause), establishing that a second round of litigation for the same cause of action is barred.

Supertech Ltd. v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association (2024), which holds that when a power is given to do a thing in a certain way, it must be done in that way or not at all (Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum).

Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. (2003) regarding the precedential value of decisions based on specific facts.

Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, regarding the exhaustion of remedies and limitation periods.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's request for retrospective status was an attempt to "nullify" or "sit over" an earlier order of temporary status that had already attained finality through the Supreme Court's 2020 judgment.

The Bench noted that if the applicant were dissatisfied with the 2009 order or the 2020 Supreme Court disposal, the appropriate remedy was to approach the Apex Court at that time, rather than filing a fresh O.A. after a 10-12 year delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide supportive documents for retrospective entry and that the current prayer was virtually identical to the one in previous rounds of litigation settled by higher courts.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined it lacked authority to re-open a settled matter and found the claim hit by the law of res judicata and limitation.

The court answered that the applicant's claim for retrospective benefits was barred by res judicata and significant laches/limitation. No orders as to costs were made.