Full Text
W.P.(C) 7051/2014 & CMNos.16550/2014 & 19394/2014
MAMTA & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr. Mahesh Srivastava & Mr. Vaibhav Manusrivastava, Advs.
Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. for R-1 & 2.
Mr. Aman Kumar Pathak, Adv. for R-3.
Through AND
MEENA KUMARI & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr. Mahesh Srivastava& Mr. Vaibhav Manusrivastava, Advs.
Through Respondents Ms. Latika Choudhry, Adv. for
Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. for R-1 & 2.
2015:DHC:11567-DB
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA
10.02.2015 Bythispetition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioners seeks to challenge the order dated 05.09.2014 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench.
Addressing arguments in support of the present writ petition, Mr. Mahesh Srivastava vehemently contends that learned Tribunal has not appreciated the Full Bench decision of the CalcuttaHigh Court in the case ofAwadhesh
Singh V. Union ofIndia &Ors. 2013 (3) CHN 407, wherein the Court has taken a view that even in the case of contract employees the Central
^ Administrative Tribunal will have jurisdiction as per the provisions of
Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals- Act and at the same time the matter can also be filed before the Industrial Tribunal of the Labour Court, as the case may be. Counsel further submits that as per the Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court, the option has been given to the workmen to chose the forum and, therefore these petitioners having chosen the forum of Central Administrative Tribunal had exercised theiroption, the
T' learned Tribunal ought not to have taken aview ofnot having its jurisdiction to entettain the petition filed by these petitioners on the ground that itlacks
^ jurisdiction. The other contention raised by Mr. Mahesh is that these petitioners were appointed as contract employees to run the affairs of
Government hospital, although through acontractor and therefore the nature of services of these petitioners are duly covered by the definition under
Section 3(q) read with Section 14(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act and, therefore, the only efficacious remedy available with the petitioners is to protect their rights against the order of termination under the
Administrative Tribunal Act and the same is not available to the petitioners under the Industrial disputes act. Counsel also submits that before the
Industrial Tribunal, also these petitioners have raised general demands and, therefore, even after having approached the Industrial Tribunal the petitioners could not have been deprived or debarred from seeking their remedy against the order of illegal termination of their services by the contractor.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
In the present matter the issue for consideration before this court is whether Learned CAT had the jurisdiction to entertain the OA filed by the petitioner. It is not in dispute thatthe Govt. ofNCT of Delhi has outsourced the work to the contractors and the petitioners were engaged through the contractors to provide contractual service to respondent No. 2. Thus the petitioners are not the employees of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and were appointed through the contractors and they cannot be said to be either holding any post or rendering any service in connection with the affairs of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Thus the post held by the petitioners is not a civil post and therefore Central Administrative Tribunal Act was not applicable to them, c
Further we find ourselves in conformity with the view taken by learned CAT that as far as thejudgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the caseofAwadhesh Singh v. Union ofIndia and Others reported in2013
ORDER
(3) CHN407 isconcerned, the ratio decidendi inthe same isthat in the case of contractual worker either the Central Administrative Tribunal or the Industrial Tribunal have the jurisdiction and when the alternate mechanism is provided in the law, the petitioner could not have invoked the extra ordinary jurisdictionof the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Whenthe Hon'ble High Court refused to entertain the Writ Petition, it was no where held that the employees of the contractor can approach the Central Administrative Tribunal but it was viewed that in the matter of contractual employee either the Central Administrative Tribunal or the Industrial Tribunal had the jurisdiction. In fact, where the department directly engaged somebody on contract basis and not through the contractor, the grievance of contract employee is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and in such cases where the work is assigned to the contractor and it is the employee of the contractor who has a grievance, the grievance can be looked into by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal under the Central Govt. in terms of the CLRA. Besides, we are also convinced with the plea raised by the respondents that when the petitioners had already approached the Industrial Tribunal for abolition of the contract and regularization of their services for part of the relief, they should have approached the Industrial Tribunal for the reliefclaimed by him before CAT. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the petition stands dismissed.
KAILAS AMBHIR, J