Back
1990 Supreme(SC) 428
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.N. VENKATACHALIAH AND M.M. PUNCHHI, JJ.
Bihar Census Employees Welfare Association and others, Appellants
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1992 of 1990
Decided on 16-8-1990.
The court emphasized the importance of ensuring that the application conformed to the relevant rule for maintainability in a representative action before the Administrative Tribunal.
Headnote:
Representative Action - Administrative Tribunal - The court remitted the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration of whether the application, as constituted, conformed to the relevant rule and was maintainable.
Fact of the Case:
The Bihar Census Employees Welfare Association sought leave to sue in a representative capacity before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the application without examining the merits of the dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter for a fresh consideration of whether the application was maintainable.
Issues: The issue revolved around the maintainability of the representative action before the Administrative Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a fresh consideration of whether the application conformed to the relevant rule and was maintainable.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of accordingly, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
ORDER:— "The Bihar Census Employees Welfare Association" moved an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad under S. 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act (Act 13 of 1985) and appears to have sought leave to sue in a representative capacity. The applicant No. 1 before the Tribunal was the said Association and applicants 2 and 3 were stated to be its Secretary and Vice President respectively.
The Tribunal did not examine the merits of the dispute raised in the application but proceeded to dismiss the application inlimine on the view it held that, having regard to the provisions of the Act, a representative action was not maintainable.
2. It is not necessary to go into the question that stem from the proposition which the Tribunal stated. The issue has some ramifications and runs into certain theoretical thickets requiring an examination of the constitution, the scope of its jurisdiction and related questions. It is not necessary to go into these aspects.
3. Sri Jaya Narayan,learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that the Tribunal did not consider whether the application even as constituted did not conform to and satisfy the requirements of sub-rule 5(b) of R. 4 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules, 1987. Learned counsel stated that sub-rule 5(b) of R. 4 would indicate that, apart altogether from the question whether the principle and discipline of 0. 1, R. 8 of the Civil Procedure Code was attracted or not, the application as brought and the array of applicants therein clearly satisfied the requirements of the statute. Learned Additional Solicitor-General appearing for the Union of India fairly stated that this aspect requires.to be examined or re-examined by the Tribunal. As both learned counsel commend a remit of the matter, we set aside the order dated 7-5-1986 made by the Tribunal dismissing appellants application and remit the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration of the question whether the application, as constituted, conformed to sub-rule5(b) of R.4 and was accordingly maintainable or not.
4. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Order accordingly.
For Citation : AIR 1991 SC 1016
Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
