Jurisdictional findings of a coordinate bench cannot be re-agitated; remedy lies solely before a superior forum.

The Petitioner, a Central Government company, dismissed the Respondent workman in 1990 following a domestic enquiry conducted in Lucknow regarding misconduct alleged to have occurred there

The Respondent raised an industrial dispute in Delhi, leading to a reference by the Delhi Administration in 1992

The Petitioner initially challenged the territorial jurisdiction and the competence of the "appropriate Government" before the Labour Court, Tis Hazari, which dismissed the objection via order dated 21.09.1999, ruling that the Secretary (Labour), Delhi, was competent to refer the dispute

The Petitioner did not challenge this 1999 order.

Instead, in 2003, the Petitioner filed a fresh application before the Labour Court, Karkardooma, raising the identical jurisdictional objection

The Labour Court dismissed this application on 05.08.2004 ("Impugned Order"), holding that the Petitioner could not re-agitate a settled issue and should have approached a higher court if aggrieved

The Petitioner then filed the present Writ Petition challenging the 2004 order.

1. Whether the Learned Labour Court was justified in rejecting the Petitioner’s plea regarding the competence of jurisdiction on the grounds that the issue had already been adjudicated in a previous interlocutory stage

The court primarily applied Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which embodies the doctrine of res judicata, precluding parties from re-litigating issues directly and substantially decided in former proceedings

It further relied on the doctrine of constructive res judicata and the principle of finality of judicial decisions to maintain judicial discipline

Regarding the "appropriate Government," the court referenced Section 2(a) and Section 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, alongside Rule 2(f) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which clarifies that for Union Territories, the Central Government's powers are construed as delegated to the Administrator or their appointed authority

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s attempt to re-file the jurisdictional objection amounted to "forum shopping" and an abuse of the legal process

It reasoned that once a competent court (the predecessor Labour Court in 1999) had adjudicated the issue of jurisdiction and the Petitioner failed to challenge that order in a superior forum, the decision attained finality

Applying Section 11 of the CPC, the Court noted that while strict rules of res judicata are sometimes relaxed in industrial adjudication, the broader principle of ending litigation applies to prevent procedural uncertainty and delay

The Court found that the Labour Court correctly exercised judicial restraint by refusing to act as an appellate body over a coordinate bench's previous order

Furthermore, the Court held that jurisdictional questions involving mixed questions of law and fact—such as where the cause of action arose or where the workman was controlled from—should be decided at the final stage of trial rather than through repetitive interlocutory challenges

The Court held that the Petitioner’s conduct in repeatedly raising settled objections caused a 26-year delay in adjudication, which is contrary to the objectives of the Industrial Disputes Act

The Court upheld the Labour Court’s decision that the Petitioner's proper remedy against the 1999 order was an appeal to a higher court, not a fresh application before a coordinate court

The parties were directed to appear before the Labour Court for an expedited trial on the merits

No costs were imposed due to the absence of the Respondent