An interim wage-revision claim for a distinct period is not barred by res judicata.

The petitioner Union sought wage revision for workers of respondent No. 1 Company. After the 2017 wage settlement expired on 31 August 2021, the Union raised a wage-revision demand, which led to Reference (IT) No. 88 of 2022 before the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad.

The Union challenged the Tribunal’s rejection of its interim applications: Exh. 10, seeking revision from 1 September 2021, and Exh. 26, seeking revision from 1 September 2025.

The parties disputed whether settlements with respondent No. 2 Union represented the majority of workers. The High Court noted that the question whether the earlier settlement was supported by the requisite majority required adjudication on evidence, and that the Company acknowledged the later settlement had not been signed by 85% of the workmen.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting Exh. 26 as barred by res judicata, although it sought wage revision for a period different from that covered by Exh. 10.

Whether the Tribunal’s observations when rejecting Exh. 10 could prejudice the Union’s case on the merits of the pending reference.

The judgment cited no statute or precedent as the basis for its decision.

It applied the principle that a later interim application seeking relief for a distinct period is not barred by res judicata merely because an earlier application concerning a different period was rejected.

The Court also held that observations made while rejecting interim relief should not prejudice the parties’ case on the merits of the pending reference, which must be decided independently after the parties have had an opportunity to lead evidence.

The Court considered Exh. 26 distinct from Exh. 10 because it sought wage revision for the period beginning 1 September 2025. It therefore held that rejecting Exh. 26 as barred by res judicata was illegal.

The underlying dispute—including whether any settlement had been reached with the requisite majority—required evidence and determination in the reference, so the Court directed that Exh. 26 be considered with the main matter.

It did not set aside the rejection of Exh. 10, but clarified that the Tribunal’s observations in that order could not affect the merits of the reference.

As to SCA No. 9589 of 2026, it directed that the observations in the order rejecting Exh. 10 would not prejudice the Union’s case on the merits.

The Tribunal was directed to decide the reference, together with Exh. 26, independently and expeditiously—preferably within six months of receiving the judgment—with no unnecessary adjournments.