SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S.C. Aggarwal, S.P. Bharucha and M.K. Mukherjee, JJ.

Civil Appeals Nos. 5028-29 of 1993. D/d. 16.4.1998

Director, Govt. of India - Appellant

Versus

General Secretary, Central Govt. Small Scale Industries Organisation Employees Union - Respondent

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Section 19 - Jurisdiction of Tribunal - Central Administrative Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain an application against award, made by Industrial Tribunal - Order passed by CAT rejecting review application set aside - Delay in filing review application condoned.

[Para 6]

Cases Referred :-

Ajay D. Panalkar v. Management of Pune Telecom Department, 1999(2) SCT 301 (SC) : 1997(11) SCC 469.

JUDGMENT

S.C. Agrawal, J. - 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(S.L.P. (C) No. 4946 of 1991) against the said judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal which was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated March 11, 1991.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 is consonance with law laid down by this Court in Ajay D. Panalkar v. Management of Pune Telecom Department, 1999(2) SCT 301 (SC) : 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 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 condoned and the said review application is allowed and the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal dated August 31, 1990 passed in O.As. Nos. 403 of 1989 and 94 of 1990 is set aside.

6. As regards the order dated November 25, 1991 passed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, we are of the view that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it was a fit case in which the High Court should have condoned the delay in the filing of the Writ Appeal and the matter should have been heard on merits. The order of the Division Bench of the High Court dated November 25, 1991 dismissing the Writ Appeal No. 532 of 1991 is, therefore, set aside, the delay in the filing of the said Writ Appeal is condoned and the said Writ Appeal is remitted to the High Court for considering on merits. Since the matter relates to the year 1991, the High Court is requested to take up and dispose of the Writ Appeal at an early date preferably within a period of six months. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

Order accordingly.