1. The petitioners have approached this Court byway of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following prayers:-
“18. In view of the aforesaid premises,Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order:-
a) Directing the respondents to consider the petitioners for regular appointment on the date on which they had completed 240 days of service in accordance with the rules & regulations prevailing at the relevant time.
b) Directing the respondents to pay to the petitioners wages, encashment of leave benefits,PF, bonus and overtime payment on the basis that they are contingent employees from their initial entry in the service.
c) Granting such other and further relief and passing such and further orders as may be necessary in the facts of the case.
d) Awarding cost of this petition.
19. During the pendency and final disposal of this petition Your Lordship may be pleased to pass an order directing the respondent to pay to the petitioners the wages and other benefits of contingent employees and without prejudice to the said claim of the petitioners, directing the respondents to pay to the petitioners the difference of wages between the wages actually paid to the petitioners and the minimum wages from time to time, without prejudice to the claim of the petitioners for wages of contingent employees from time to time.”
2. The facts leading to filing this petition indicate that the petitioners have in fact moved the Court on earlier occasion for various reliefs, including regularization, but those petitions came to be disposed of by passing appropriate orders qua protecting their wages. One such petition is Special Civil Application No. 1575 of 1988 which was disposed of by this Court (Coram: R.C. Mankad & V.H. Bhairavia, JJ {as they then were}) on 30/3/1989. Petitioners also sought reliance upon decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 7277 of 1992 filed by them and Special Civil Application No. 7601 of 1995 which came to be disposed of on 3rd May 2002 by this Court.
3. In view of aforesaid decisions and in view of the details produced at page no. 38 and averments and contentions with regard to res judicata raised by respondent, this Court is of the view that this petition cannot be said to be maintainable as it is barred by principles of res judicata. Moreover the contentions raised by the advocate for the petitioners that the office order dated 24/1/1992 which is in respect regularizing persons named thereunder, present petitioners can also be granted same benefits, however this order would not be available to the petitioners of the present petition, as this ground though were available to them at the earlier point of time, this document is not finding place either by way of production of document or by way of annexing the order with the petition, and now this order cannot be make use of by the petitioners.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioners further submitted that the Standing Order shows that after 240 days completion the workmen will be entitled for regularization. This statement also, in my view, is not available to the petitioners as the same can not whittle down the res judicata principle which stare in face of all the concerned, and when such plea is not taken and such grounds are not made out on the basis of documentary evidences with regard to continuity of service and or completion of 240 days; and it is not the case that said ground was made out and permitted to be taken up later on while disposing of the matter vide order dated 30/3/1989 while disposing of the earlier petition being Special Civil Application No. 1575 of 1988, now same cannot be permitted to be re-agitated.
5. Further, those reasonings are supported by the Court on the reasons and grounds shown in the order dated 3rd May 2002 in Special Civil Application No.7277 of 1992 and Special Civil Application No. 7601 of 1995, which would also clearly indicate what is the purview and purport of the challenge that could be raised. Hence, the petition being meritless deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any granted earlier, shall stand vacated. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
[ S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ] /vgn