Back
2013 Supreme(Chh) 56
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Yatindra Singh, & N.K. Agarwal, JJ.
ALOK AGRAWAL – PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS – RESPONDENT
Writ Petition (C) No. 6606 of 2011
Decided On : 7.2.2013
Mr. Y.G. Tamaskar, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, Assistant Solicitor General, for the Union of India/Respondent No. I.
Mr. B.P. Mishra, Advocate, for the Respondent No.2.
Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal and Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocates, for the Respondent No.3.
Headnote:
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13 (1)(i-a) - ground of cruelty – Divorce - Decree of divorce granted by Family Court was set aside – Appeal - According to appellant, marriage was solemnized as per customary rites - Case of husband that marriage was never consummated and espondent was not interested in marital life - It is alleged that respondent left company of appellant however, according to respondent, she left appellants company - Though, petition for dissolution was filed in 1998 it was disposed of by Family Court regard to evidence available on record, Family Court was of view that appellant was entitled to decree of divorce on ground of cruelty - In appeal, High Court, however, came to conclusion that evidence available on record was not sufficient to establish cruelty so as to grant a decree of divorce and hence order of decree of divorce granted by Family Court was set aside - Held, It is fairly clear that respondent is not interested to prosecute matter any further, perhaps, because she has already received Rs.5 lakhs by way of permanent alimony pursuant to order passed by this Court and as recorded in order - It is seen from record that there was an earlier attempt when matter was pending before the High Court, to have matter settled on payment of permanent alimony to tune of Rs.4 lakhs. Be that as it may - Now that, that appellant is since remarried for more than a decade back, pursuant to decree of divorce granted by Family Court and since respondent has accepted amount of Rs.5 lakhs offered by the appellant/husband towards permanent alimony and since appellant submits that he does not want to prosecute any litigation for recovery of gold jewellery and other articles worth more than Rs.5 lakhs, court do not think that there is any fruitful purpose in keeping this matter pending - Appeals are allowed.
1. The main point involved in this writ petition is whether the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) can be notified under Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (the Act), so as to confer jurisdiction on the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) to decide service dispute of the employees of SAIL.
THE FACTS :
2. Shri Alok Agrawal (the Petitioner) is an employee of Bhilai Steel Plant, a unit of SAIL. The petitioner as well as other employees have service dispute with SAIL. They have been raising their service dispute before the Industrial/Labour Courts or before the High Court, as the case may be.
3. The Parliament by the Act has constituted the Tribunal for considering the service dispute among the Central Government employees. Section 14 of the Act also envisages, entrustment of service disputes of other authorities also the Tribunal.
4. The Central Government has Issued a notification dated 31.3.2010 under Section 14(2) of the Act entrusting the service disputes of the employees of the SAIL also to the Tribunal.
5. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the validity of the notification dated 31st March, 2010.
SUBMISSION OF PETITIONER
6. We have heard counsel for the parties. The counsel for the Petitioner submits that:
(i) The SAIL is neither a local authority nor any other authority.
(ii) The notification under Section 14(2) of the Act could not be issued.
THE DECISION
7. Section 14 (2) of the Act envisages that, apart from others, service dispute of local or any other authority can be entrusted to the Tribunal, if the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied.
8. It is not disputed by the counsel for the Respondents that the SAIL is not a local authority. However, they submit that:
• The SAIL is 'authority other than local authority';
• It is under the control of the Central Government;
• The notification could be issued under Section 14 (2) of the Act; and
• It is valid.
9. Section 14 of the Act is titled as 'Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal'. Section 14(1) of the Act provides the service matters of Central Government as well as service matters of employees of some other authorities (as detailed in Section 14(1)(c) of the Act) who are at the disposal of the Central Government, are to be gone into by the Tribunal.
10. Section 14(2) of the Act provides that the Central Government may, by notification, apply the provisions of Section 14(3) of the Act in respect of certain authorities, detailed therein. Among others, these authorities include 'local or other authorities under the control of Government of India'.
11. The Central Government in paragraph 6 of its counter-affidavit, has stated that 85.82% shares of SAIL are held by the Government of India and it is under the control of Ministry of Steel and Mines, that is, Central Government.
12. The Rejoinder-affidavit has been filed. However, there is no specific denial of paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit of the Union of India. In view of above, we have no reason to disbelieve the reply of the Central Government.
13. Majority of shares of 85.82% SAIL are held by the Government of India. It may not be a local authority but it is definitely an authority other than local authority, that is, under the control of Government of India.
14. In view of the same, there is no illegality in notifying SAIL under Section 14 (2) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS
15. Our conclusions are as follows:
(a) SAIL is not a local authority but is other authority within the meaning of Section 14 (2) of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1988;
(b) It is under the control of the Government of India;
(c) It can be notified under Section 14(2) of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1988.
16. In view of our conclusions, there is no illegality in issuing the notification. The writ petition has no merit. It is dismissed.
Petition Dismissed.
