Res judicata bars re-litigating claims for retrospective benefits after final adjudication by the Supreme Court.

The applicant was engaged as a casual laborer by the Department of Telecommunications on December 21, 1990

Having completed 240 days of service, he sought "Temporary Status Mazdoor" (TSM) status.

Following a 2003 direction from the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) and subsequent litigation in the Orissa High Court and the Supreme Court, the respondents conferred temporary status upon the applicant and 149 others on December 2, 2009

The Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 3600/2009, eventually closed the matter on February 6, 2020, noting that temporary status had already been granted

A subsequent contempt petition before the High Court was disposed of on February 16, 2023, observing that the orders had merged with the Supreme Court's decision

In 2023, the applicant filed the present Original Application (O.A.) seeking retrospective conferment of TSM status from his original date of eligibility based on departmental letters from 2000 and 2001

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the retrospective conferment of temporary status from the date of his initial eligibility

2. Whether the application is barred by the principles of res judicata, limitation, and the doctrine of laches due to the 10-12 year delay in challenging the status quo

The court applied the principle of Res Judicata ("Nemo Debet Bis Vexari Pro Una Et Eadem Causa"), which prohibits a party from being vexed twice for the same cause of action

It relied on Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, regarding the exhaustion of remedies and statutory limitations

The Tribunal cited Supertech Ltd. v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association, reinforcing 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)

Additionally, it applied Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt Ltd to establish that judicial precedents are authorities only for what they specifically decide based on their unique facts

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant’s prayer for retrospective TSM status was an attempt to relitigate an issue that attained finality through the Supreme Court’s 2020 order

The Tribunal noted that the applicant accepted the grant of temporary status in 2009 and did not challenge its prospective nature during the decade-long litigation in higher forums

To grant the relief now would effectively nullify the Supreme Court’s approval of the 2009 arrangement, which is beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction

Furthermore, the Tribunal found the claim to be "stale," as it was filed after a lapse of 10-12 years without sufficient explanation for the delay, thus violating the law of limitation

The Bench followed its own precedent in O.A. No. 621 of 2021, where a similar plea by similarly situated employees was dismissed on the same grounds

The claim for retrospective status was held to be barred by res judicata and the principle of limitation

No costs were awarded