TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Settlement extinguishes merits; ATA 1985 (Secs 3(q), 14) and Article 323-A oust Article 226 jurisdiction for daily-wage employees</h1> Writ petitions were disposed after the parties' settlement was adopted by the SC, leaving merits extinguished. The SC held the Administrative Tribunals ... - 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
