Res judicata bars fresh litigation on claims already settled by Apex Court orders.

The applicant, Bharat Kumar Dalei, was engaged as a casual labourer in the Microwave Project, Bhubaneswar, by the erstwhile Department of Telecommunication from January 1, 1990.

He claimed eligibility for temporary status after completing 240 days in a year, which was agitated before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, in TRID Case No. 268/2001.

The Tribunal, on May 19, 2003, directed the management to grant temporary status to the disputants and consider regularization if posts were created/sanctioned in the future.

The department challenged this order before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No. 9101/2003.

On June 22, 2007, the High Court set aside the part of the order directing regularization, leaving it to the management's discretion.

A subsequent Writ Appeal No. 53/2007 by the department was dismissed on November 7, 2008.

The matter reached the Hon'ble Apex Court as Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 9790/2009, which directed on May 8, 2009, that the High Court's judgment of June 22, 2007, be worked out.

In compliance, the respondents conferred temporary status on 08 workmen on December 4, 2009.

The SLP was converted to Civil Appeal No. 3600/2009 and disposed of on February 6, 2020, affirming that temporary status had been granted.

The applicant's Union later moved CONTC. No. 2084/2021 before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, which was disposed of on February 16, 2023, stating that no further order was needed as temporary status had been granted, leaving open the possibility for the petitioners to agitate any subsisting grievance.

The applicant filed the current OA claiming temporary status from the date of eligibility.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to retrospective conferment of temporary status from the date of his eligibility, despite previous litigation confirming the grant of temporary status.

2. Whether the present O.A. is barred by the principles of limitation and res judicata.

The Tribunal applied the principles of res judicata, stating that "Nemo Debet Bis Vexari Pro Una Et Eadem Causa" (nobody should be vexed twice for the same cause).

"Res Judicata Pro Veritate Occipitur" (a judicial decision must be accepted as correct).

It also invoked the legal maxim "Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum" (what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly), as highlighted by the Supreme Court in Supertech Ltd. Vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Ors, (2024) 1 SCC (L&S) 819.

The Tribunal further cited Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt Ltd, (2003) 2 SCC 11, to emphasize that a decision is an authority only for what it decides, and slight factual differences can alter its precedential value.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's request to grant temporary status retrospectively or to re-evaluate the previous decision would effectively nullify an order approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

The applicant had the opportunity to challenge the terms of the temporary status grant before the Hon'ble Apex Court but failed to do so for over 10-12 years, making the current OA untimely and an attempt to re-litigate a settled matter.

The Hon'ble High Court in CONTC. No. 2084/2021 also declined to interfere, acknowledging the Apex Court's affirmation of the temporary status.

The Tribunal concluded that granting the applicant's prayer would require it to sit in judgment over an Apex Court order, which is beyond its authority, and that the case was clearly barred by res judicata.

It distinguished the current case from others cited by the applicant, finding their facts entirely different.

It found no distinguishing features from a similar O.A. No. 621 of 2024, dismissed on December 17, 2024, that would warrant a different view.

The application for retrospective temporary status was denied.

No costs were awarded.