( 1 ) IN this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, what is challenged by the Union of India and its Engineers in the All India Radio is the order dated 13. 12. 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Original Application No. 344 of 2004 as well as the order dated 24. 07. 2006 passed by the said Tribunal rejecting Review Application No. 05 of 2006 with MA No. 54 of 2006 on the ground that the Tribunal has no power to condone the delay in filing the Review Application.

( 2 ) WHILE issuing notice on 20. 09. 2007, we had made it clear that in view of the reliance placed by the learned Standing Counsel for Union of India on the decision of the Apex Court in Mangu Ram Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1976 SC 105, notice was issued for final disposal.

( 3 ) THE respondent herein moved the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 344 of 2004 stating that he was a physically handicapped person with 50% disability and was appointed by the respondents before the Tribunal (i. e. the present petitioners) as Wireman in the physically handicapped quota. The respondent further stated that he had been serving with the authorities continuously for the last more than 10 years, but he was still not regularised in service. The petitioners herein contested the application and contended that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties and that the work of maintenance at Doordarshan, Ahmedabad and All India Radio was managed through contractors. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal allowed Original Application in the following terms :-

"for the reasons discussed above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow this OA and direct the respondents to consider the applicant for regularisation in service as Group d Wireman against any available vacancy in group d . If there is no vacancy available he shall be considered for regularisation against any next vacancy that becomes available in group d . Till such regularisation, his services shall not be dispensed with without resorting to the service rules applicable to him. With this direction, the OA stands disposed of. No order as to costs. "

( 4 ) THE petitioners herein i. e. the respondents before the Tribunal moved Review Application No. 05 of 2006 with an application for condoning delay of eight days. By the impugned order dated 24. 07. 2006, the Tribunal rejected the application for review only on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the Review Application. Hence, this petition by the Union of India and its two Engineers.

( 5 ) MR YN Ravani, learned Standing Counsel for Union of India has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Mangu Ram Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1976 SC 105 in support of the contention that the Tribunal does have the power to condone delay as the provisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 do not specifically exclude the applicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 including the provisions of Section 5 conferring the power to condone the delay. The other side is not in a position to distinguish the above judgment.

( 6 ) THE Central Administrative Tribunal has been constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 enacted by the Parliament in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 323a of the Act. Section 21 of the Act provides for the period of limitation for filing an application before the Tribunal. As per the provisions of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 21, the period of limitation is one year from the date on which the order challenged before the Tribunal was made. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) also deal with other contingencies. Sub-section (3) of Section 21 reads as under :-

"notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), an application may be admit