Back
1996 Supreme(Ker) 400
Judges : C.S.RAJAN
Southern Naval C.C.E.Assn. - Appellant
Versus
Flag Officer Commanding in Chief. - Respondent
Case No : O.P. No. 1937 of 1993
Decided On : 11/26/1996
Advocates Appeared :
N.N. Sugunapalan; M.A.T. Pai; For Petitioners Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil; For Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the jurisdiction, powers, and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) as defined in S.14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act in relation to service matters concerning civilian employees in the defence services.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Administrative Tribunals Act - S.14 - S.15 - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to entertain Original Petitions in view of S.14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. The petitioners sought various writs and directions related to termination of services, renewal of identity cards, minimum wages, and regularisation of employment.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act and the nature of the petitioners' employment in the defence services. It found that the petitioners' requests fell within the definition of service matters as per the Act, depriving the court of jurisdiction to entertain the petitions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petitions in light of S.14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of S.14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, which defines the jurisdiction, powers, and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in relation to recruitment and service matters concerning civilian employees in the defence services.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Original Petitions as not maintainable before the court due to the nature of the petitioners' requests falling within the definition of service matters as per the Act, thus depriving the court of jurisdiction.
1. An interesting question, on which there can be two opinions, arises in these Original Petitions. The question is whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain these Original Petitions in view of S.14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In order to decide the above questions, it is necessary to look into the prayers in these original petitions. The main prayers in O.P. No. 1937 of 1993 are as follows:
"(a) A writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, direction or order prohibiting respondents 1 to 3 from terminating the services or denying work to the petitioners 2 to 22 in the maintenance department;
(b) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to renew the identity cards of the petitioners for entry in the INS Venduruthy so long as they are employed in the maintenance department of the Sailors Married Accommodation in the INS Venduruthy;
(c) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 to grant minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act to the petitioners and all other benefits deserved by the petitioners under the various labour laws and standing orders Ext.P2.
The prayers in O.P. No. 14066 of 1966 are as follows:
(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for regularisation in the respective post of casual employees;
(ii) A writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ order or direction declaring that the petitioner is entitled to get work and wages with the respondents without any break and issue necessary directions to the respondents to engage the petitioner accordingly;
(iii) To issue a writ or mandamus or such other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents not to appoint or engage anybody as casual labourer under the establishment of the respondents till the petitioner and similarly placed persons included in the seniority list are fully engaged".
2. S.14 of the Act reads as follows:
"14. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal. -
(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall excise on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercise immediately before that day by all Courts (except the Supreme Court) in relation to
(a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any All India Service or to any civil service of the Union or a civil post under the Union or to a post connected with defence or in the defence services, being, in either case, a post filled by the civilian;
(b) all service matters concerning - (i) a member of any All India Service; or
(ii) a person (not being a member of an All India Service or a person referred to in clause (c)) appointed to any civil service of the Union or any civil post under the Union; or
(iii) A civilian (not being a member of an All India Service or a person referred to in clause (c)) appointed to any defence services or a post connected with defence;
and pertaining to the service of such member, person or civilian, in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any corporation or society owned or controlled by the Government;
(c) all service matters pertaining to service in connection with the affairs of the Union concerning a person appointed to any service or post referred to in sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) of clause (b), being a person whose services have been placed by a State Government or any local or other authority or any corporation or society or other body, at the disposal of the Central Government for such appointment.
Explanation: For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that references to "Union" in this sub-section shall be construed as including reference als
