Sri Gopabandhu Biswal vs Krishna Chandra Mohanty & Ors on 21 April, 1998
8. So far as the apprehension expressed by the Additional Advocate General that the decision of the Tribunal, if not interfered with, may be required to be implemented in similar other cases, is not acceptable. First of all, such a judgment cannot be construed as res judicata, as it is well known that res judicata is applicable when the litigation is between the same parties or persons claiming through the same parties. There is also no justification for the Additional Advocate General to apprehend that the order of the Tribunal would be construed as a judicial precedent in other cases. We do not think that the order of the Tribunal can be construed as a precedent. When such a dispute would arise in future, obviously, it has to be decided by the High Court and it would not bind the Tribunal or any other inferior authority, particularly keeping in view the fact that the Tribunal has been abolished in the State. Even though the order of Tribunal is to be normally followed by the same Tribunal, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gopabandhu Biswal v. Krishna Chandra Mohanty, (1998) 4 SCC 447, that the Tribunal cannot ignore its earlier judgment, where it has ruled.