The Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the finding of the Industrial Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :- These appeals have been filed against judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dated November 25, 1991 whereby Writ Appeal No. 532 of 1991 filed by the appellant has been dismissed as belated and the delay in the filing of the appeal has not been condoned and the order dated March 3, 1992 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam in Roll No. 72 of 1991.

2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows :

An industrial dispute was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal at Quilon. The Industrial Tribunal gave its award on December 12, 1988. Feeling aggrieved by the said award the appellant filed a writ petition (O. P. No. 2721 of 1989-Y) under Article 227 of the Constitution in the Kerala High Court. The said writ petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge the High Court by judgment dated December 21, 1989 on the ground that the writ petition was maintainable in view of Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application (O.A. No. 94 of 1990) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The respondent-workmen also filed an application (O.A. No. 403 of 1989) before the Central Administrative Tribunal by its judgment dated August 31, 1990. The appellant filed a Special Leave Petition (S.L.P.(C) No. 4946 of 1991) against the said judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal which was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated March 11, 1991. Thereafter, the appellant, on May 25, 1991, filed Writ Appeal No. 532 of 1991 against the judgment of the learned single Judge of the High Court of Kerala dated December 21, 1989. The said Writ Appeal was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated November 25, 1991. In the meanwhile, the appellant had filed a Review Petition (R.A. No. 72 of 1991) before the Central Administrative Tribunal for review of the judgment dated August 31, 1990. The said Review Petition was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal by order dated March 3, 1992 on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.

3-4. We have heard Shri V. C. Mahajan, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in support of the appeals, and we have perused the order of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dated November 25, 1991 dismissing the writ appeal as well as the order dated March 3, 1992 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the Review Petition.

5. We will first take up the appeal which is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated March 3, 1992 dismissing the Review Petition. A perusal of the said order of the Central Administrative Tribunal shows that while observing that there was delay in the filing of the Review Petition, The Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the Tribunal would have been inclined to condone the long delay but since the Review Petition is devoid of substance it did not feel inclined to do so. The Tribunal has considered the matter on merits to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to deal with the application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act and has held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the application against the award made by the Industrial Tribunal. The said view of the Central Administrative Tribunal is not in consonance with law laid down by this Court in Ajay D. Panalkar v. Management of Fune Telecom Department (1997) 11 SCC 469, wherein it has been laid down that the Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the finding of the 554 Industrial Tribunal. In view of the said decision, the order dated March 3, 1992 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the review application cannot be upheld and the said review application must be allowed. The order dated March 3, 1992 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is, therefore, set aside, the delay in the filing of the review application is condo