Reference Dismissed for Non-Prosecution Is Not Res Judicata; Delay in Raising Second Industrial Dispute Requires Evidence Before Tribunal: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Name: M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. State of Punjab and Others

Date of Judgment: 25 June 2026

Citation: CWP-1980 of 2011

Bench: Justice Kuldeep Tiwari

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that dismissal of an industrial reference for want of prosecution, without adjudication on merits, neither amounts to an “award” determining the dispute nor attracts the principle of res judicata. Consequently, the appropriate Government is competent to make a fresh reference on the same industrial dispute. The Court further held that although delay in raising a subsequent industrial dispute is a relevant consideration, whether such delay is unreasonable is a mixed question of fact and law which must ordinarily be determined by the Industrial Tribunal during adjudication and not at the stage of challenging the reference itself.

Summary: The petitioner-management challenged the validity of a second reference made under the Industrial Disputes Act after an earlier reference concerning the same dismissal had been dismissed for want of prosecution. It was contended that the earlier proceedings had culminated in an award attaining finality, thereby barring a fresh reference on the same cause of action by virtue of the doctrine of res judicata. The management further argued that the second demand notice had been raised after an unexplained delay of nearly 5½ years, rendering the reference legally unsustainable.

Rejecting the first contention, the High Court observed that the earlier proceedings were dismissed solely because the workman failed to appear and prosecute the reference. Since no adjudication on the legality of the dismissal or the industrial dispute had ever taken place, the order could not be treated as an award deciding the rights of the parties. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Virendra Bhandari, the Court reiterated that only an adjudication on merits can attract the principle of res judicata, and a dismissal for default does not extinguish the industrial dispute itself.

With regard to delay, the Court noted that while the workman had initially raised the dispute promptly after approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the second demand notice was issued approximately 5½ years after dismissal of the earlier reference. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in UP State Road Transport Corporation v. Ram Singh, the Court acknowledged that unreasonable delay may disentitle a workman from relief. However, it held that the issue whether the delay was sufficiently explained or unreasonable required examination of facts and evidence and therefore constituted a mixed question of fact and law, which ought to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal during adjudication rather than in writ proceedings challenging the reference itself.

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the validity of the second reference, holding that the earlier dismissal for non-prosecution did not bar a fresh reference. The Court left the issue of delay open for determination by the Industrial Tribunal while adjudicating the industrial dispute on merits.