RES JUDICATA: Second litigation for same cause of action, directly or indirectly decided, is barred.

The applicant, Priya Ranjan Roul, was engaged as a casual labourer in the Microwave Project, Cuttack, on August 1, 1990.

He claimed eligibility for temporary status after completing 240 days of work in a year.

Due to the department's failure to grant temporary status, the matter was agitated before the Central Govt. 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, finding an employer-employee relationship and the work to be of a permanent and perennial nature.

The Tribunal, however, noted its lack of jurisdiction to order regularization, directing the management to consider it if posts were created in the future.

The respondents challenged this order before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in W.P(C) No. 9101/2003, which, on June 22, 2007, set aside the part of the Tribunal's order directing consideration of regularization, stating that such decisions were for the management.

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

The matter then reached the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 9790/2009.

On May 8, 2009, the Apex Court directed that the High Court's judgment of June 22, 2007, be worked out.

In compliance, the respondents conferred temporary status on 8 workmen on December 4, 2009, pending the final outcome of the SLA.

The SLA was converted to Civil Appeal No. 3600/2009 and disposed of on February 6, 2020.

The Apex Court noted that temporary status had been granted and saw "no reason to unsettle that position".

Subsequently, the Union moved the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in CONTC. No. 2084/2021, seeking temporary status for others.

The High Court, on February 16, 2023, disposed of the contempt petition, observing that the Apex Court had already stated it required no interference as temporary status had been granted.

The High Court permitted the petitioner-workmen to agitate any subsisting grievance on its own merits.

The applicant, who was not granted temporary status "on permanent basis", filed the present O.A. after the disposal of the CONTC, seeking temporary status from his date of eligibility.

The respondents raised objections regarding delay, laches, limitation, res judicata, and the non-maintainability of the OA, emphasizing that temporary status was granted in compliance with the Apex Court's interim orders, and the issue had attained finality.

Whether the applicant's prayer to extend temporary status from the date of eligibility retrospectively is barred by limitation and the principle of res judicata, given the previous rounds of litigation up to the Apex Court.

Whether the present Tribunal can nullify an earlier order granting temporary status that was approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles of res judicata, emphasizing that a second round of litigation for the same cause of action, directly or indirectly decided in a previous case, would be hit by this law.

It referred to the maxims "Nemo Debet Bis Vexari Pro Una Et Eadem Causa" (nobody should be vexed twice for the same cause) and "Res Judicata Pro Veritate Occipitur" (a judicial decision must be accepted as correct).

The ruling in *Supertech Ltd. v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Ors.*, (2024) 1 SCC (L&S) 819, was cited for the principle that "where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all," and that "one cannot do indirectly what one cannot do directly" ("Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum").

Additionally, the ruling in *Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt Ltd*, (2003) 2 SCC 11, was cited for the principle that a decision is an authority for what it is decided, not what can be logically deduced therefrom, and that slight factual differences can alter precedential value.

The Tribunal found a direct parallel between the present O.A. and a previously dismissed O.A. No. 621 of 2024, noting no distinct features that would warrant a different outcome.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's request to grant temporary status retrospectively, effective from the date of eligibility, implicitly sought to nullify the previous order granting temporary status (dated December 4, 2009), which had already been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

The Apex Court, in its order dated February 6, 2020, had explicitly stated that since temporary status had been granted, it saw no reason to "unsettle that position".

The Tribunal underscored that if the applicant had any grievance regarding the manner in which temporary status was granted, they should have agitated it before the Apex Court at the relevant time, not before the Tribunal after a lapse of 10-12 years.

Allowing such a prayer would effectively mean the Tribunal was sitting in appeal over an Apex Court order, which is impermissible.

The Tribunal further found that the applicant's case was hit by the principles of limitation and res judicata, as the current prayer was virtually the same as the one resolved in previous litigation that had attained finality.

The cases and letters relied upon by the applicant were deemed inapplicable due to differing facts and issues.

It held that the prayer for retrospective conferment of temporary status was barred by the principles of limitation and res judicata, as the issue had been conclusively addressed and affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in previous litigation.

The Tribunal also asserted that it lacked the authority to interfere with matters that had attained finality through an Apex Court order.

Consequently, no costs were awarded.