pointed out that the said contention was specifically raised. The second contention is that the first complaint filed on behalf of the said seven employees was unconditionally withdrawn and therefore, the present complaint was not maintainable. He urged that though this contention was specifically canvassed before the learned Single Judge, he declined to go into the same only on the ground that the plea of res judicata was not raised before the Industrial Court. Inviting our attention to the Judgment of the Industrial Court, he submitted that the issue of maintainability of the complaint being the issue no.1 was framed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court. He submitted that the issue of jurisdiction based on the dispute regarding the existence of employer-employee relationship was very much raised before the learned Single Judge as reflected from the Memorandum of the Writ Petition , but while defending the complaint, the said issue was not urged. He submitted that in the Appeal, the appellant is entitled to urge this question. He relied upon the three decisions of the Apex Court. The first one is in the case of Chittori Subbanna vs. Kudappa Subbanna and others1 . The second one is in the case of Jagmittar Sain Bhagat and others vs. Director, Health Services, Haryana and others2 and the third one is decision in the case of Shrikant V. Gawas vs. Tulsiani Chambers Premises Co-operative Society Limited3 . He submitted that in view of the said decisions, this Court is
