1995 (9) TMI 417 - SC - Indian Laws

Settlement extinguishes merits; ATA 1985 (Secs 3(q), 14) and Article 323-A oust Article 226 jurisdiction for daily-wage employees

Writ petitions were disposed after the parties' settlement was adopted by the SC, leaving merits extinguished. The SC held the Administrative Tribunals ... Applicability of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 to daily-wage/casual employees - Divestment of High Court jurisdiction under Article 226 by the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Scope of Article 323-A and conferment of jurisdiction on Administrative Tribunals - Settlement in pending writ proceedings extinguishing merits of claimApplicability of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 to daily-wage/casual employees - Divestment of High Court jurisdiction under Article 226 by the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Scope of Article 323-A and conferment of jurisdiction on Administrative Tribunals - High Court was divested of jurisdiction under Article 226 in respect of the claims of daily-wage employees and the jurisdiction vested in Administrative Tribunals constituted under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. - HELD THAT: - The Court applied the principle laid down in Union of India v. Deep Chand Pandey, holding that the enactment of the 1985 Act pursuant to Article 323-A confers a wide jurisdiction on Administrative Tribunals. An examination of the Act, particularly Sections identified in the precedent, indicates its coverage extends to claims of casual or daily-wage employees; there is no basis for a narrow construction that would preserve the High Court's writ jurisdiction in such cases. Consequently the power and jurisdiction to entertain the present disputes vested in the Administrative Tribunals and not the High Court. The Court noted that the controversy on merits did not survive since the parties had reached and executed a settlement which had been given effect to by this Court in the earlier writ proceedings, and therefore there was no substantive interference with the settled claims. [Paras 4, 5]High Court divested of jurisdiction; jurisdiction to adjudicate the employees' claims lies with Administrative Tribunals under the 1985 Act; merits not reopened because of prior settlement.Final Conclusion: The appeal is disposed of by holding that the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 divests the High Court of jurisdiction under Article 226 in respect of the daily-wage employees' claims; as the merits were previously settled, the Court declined to reopen the matter and disposed of the appeal with no costs. The respondents, daily-wage T. Mates performing clerical duties, claimed 'equal pay for equal work' with regular clerks. The High Court directed payment on that basis. On merits the controversy had been settled between parties and the settlement was adopted by this Court, disposing of the writ petitions; accordingly the merits no longer survive. The remaining question was jurisdiction: whether the High Court retained power under Article 226 or jurisdiction was vested in tribunals under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 ('the Act'). Relying on Union of India v. Deep Chand Pandey, the Court held that the Act applies to daily-wage/casual employees. As stated, 'The scope of Article 323-A permitting the Parliament to legislate on the subject covered therein is, having regard to the language, very wide, and by enacting 1985 Act this power has been exercised in almost full measure... An examination of Section 14 and Section 3(q) clearly indicates that the Act covers a very wide field...' Consequently the High Court was divested of jurisdiction under Article 226, jurisdiction vesting in the Administrative Tribunal. Since merits were settled, the appeal was disposed of without interference.