The court held that the Tribunal cannot lay down its own views in the matter of providing service conditions of an employee, as the stipulation of service conditions is purely within the domain of the employer.

EASWARAN S., J The Employees State Insurance Corporation (for short, ‘the ESI Corporation’) is the petitioner herein and 1st respondent in the Original Application. The reliefs sought for in the Original Application was to declare that the applicant is entitled to be absorbed into the service of the ESI Corporation reckoning his seniority with effect from 24.3.1993 and also to set aside Annexure A4 order 19.12.2011 by which the claim for counting the past service of the applicant was rejected.

2. The brief facts for the disposal of the present Original Petition are as follows:

The applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal was appointed in service on 24.3.1993 as Assistant Insurance Medical Officer. At the time of entry into service, the service of the applicant was governed by the Insurance Medical Services. Later, the applicant was appointed as Specialist Surgeon in the ESI Hospital, Ezhukone by order dated 20.11.2003 as evidenced from Annexure A1. The applicant was continuing as Specialist Doctor in ESI Hospital, Ezhukone when the hospitals at Parippally and Ezhukone were handed over to the ESI Corporation with effect from 16.4.2010 and 20.4.2010. The question of absorption of employees was pending consideration and the ESI Corporation, by its communication dated 13.6.2011 forwarded the terms of absorption of employees in the above mentioned hospitals. It was contended by the respondent/applicant that the employees opting for absorption in the Corportion was resigned from the State Government Service and was later absorbed into general duty at medical officer reserve cadre. However, in the case of specialist Doctor, they would be absorbed in the Specialist Sub Cadre of the ESI Corporation. The applicant while working as Specialist Surgeon in the ESI hospital was liable to be absorbed in the ESI Corporation in the Specialist Cadre. This was the backbone of the contention raised by the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’, for short) in the Original Application.

3. The petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and resisted the claim of the applicant. The prime contention raised was that though the applicant was absorbed by order dated 27.6.2012, the applicant chose to challenge the order before the Tribunal only on 22.10.2013. It was further pointed out that such employees seeking absorption to ESI Corporation had to submit an option. Having unconditionally accepted Annexure A4 order of absorption, the belated claim cannot be considered. The working of the applicant in the ESI Corporation was on a deputation and while so, the applicant had applied for a fresh selection in the post of Specialist in the ESI Corporation as per Annexure A6 notification. Thus, the essence of contention of the petitioner was that the applicant being a direct recruitee to the post of Specialist Grade II (junior scale), there was no question of the reckoning of the past service for the purpose of calculating the seniority in the ESI Corporation.

4. On a consideration of the rival contentions and the materials on record, the learned Tribunal by the order impugned came to the conclusion that the applicant is entitled to succeed and direction was issued to absorb the applicant in Specialist Grade II in the ESI Corporation from the date of absorption option exercised.

5. The petitioner has thus challenged the said order before this Court by invoking the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. We have heard Sri. T.V. Ajayakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Sumathi Dandapani, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri. Millu Dandapani, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

7. We have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar and have perused the materials produced along with the original petition.

8. Sri. Ajayakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend before us that the learned Tribunal erred in allowing the