1992 (8) TMI 313 - SC - Indian Laws

Section 14 ousts writ jurisdiction in disputes over casual/daily-wage employment continuance, recognition, termination, or conditions of service

Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Versus Deep Chand Pandey and Ors.

Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Versus Deep Chand Pandey and Ors. - 1992 INSC 224, 1992 (4) SCC 432 ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 pursuant to Article 323A of the Constitution, is vested with jurisdiction to entertain and decide claims by persons employed on a casual/daily-wage basis by the Union of India. 2. Whether the High Court retains jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions challenging termination of casual servants of the Union of India when the subject-matter falls within the ambit of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 3. Whether the status of employment as 'casual' or the termination of service (post-termination cessation of master-servant relationship) excludes a claimant from remedy before the Tribunal under the Act. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal over casual/daily-wage employees of the Union of India Legal framework: Article 323A authorises Parliament to create administrative tribunals for disputes and complaints regarding recruitment and service conditions of persons appointed to public services and posts under the State. The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, sections particularly relevant being Section 4(1) (establishment of Central Administrative Tribunal), Section 14 (vesting of jurisdiction, powers and authority of all courts except the Supreme Court in the Tribunal), and the definitional sweep of Section 3(q) (conditions of service). Precedent treatment: The Court treated Article 323A and the 1985 Act as enabling a broad legislative reach; parliamentary explanations (ministerial clarification in legislative debates) were cited to show intended breadth. No previous decision was overruled or distinguished in the text; the Court applied statutory and constitutional language to the facts. Interpretation and reasoning: The expression 'all courts' in Section 14(1) is comprehensive and includes High Courts. The Court emphasised the wide scope of Article 323A and the 1985 Act, noting that the Act's language and legislative intent indicate coverage of a broad class of employment-related disputes. The respondents' substantive claim sought continuation of employment and recognition of status (temporary), which falls squarely within 'conditions of service' and recruitment/service disputes contemplated by Article 323A and the Act. Legislative materials (ministerial statements) were used to support a purposive interpretation avoiding narrow exclusions by enumeration. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The Tribunal has jurisdiction over disputes concerning employment and conditions of service of persons engaged by the Union of India even though such persons are casual/daily-wage servants, where the claim concerns continuation or status in employment. Obiter - reliance on parliamentary debate as a policy rationale and the specific ministerial formulation is supportive but not presented as binding precedent. Conclusion: The remedy for claims by casual/daily-wage employees of the Union of India relating to continuation in service or conditions of service lies before the Central Administrative Tribunal; the Tribunal is vested with jurisdiction to entertain such claims under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Issue 2 - Exclusivity of Tribunal jurisdiction and consequent ouster of High Court jurisdiction Legal framework: Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act vests in the Tribunal 'all the jurisdiction, powers and authority' exercisable by all courts except the Supreme Court; Article 323A permits exclusion of the jurisdiction of courts except this Court under Article 136. Precedent treatment: The Court accepted the statutory provision's literal and purposive effect and treated the transfer of jurisdiction as intended to be wide. No contrary authorities were applied to narrow the ouster. Interpretation and reasoning: Given the comprehensive phrase 'all courts' and the Tribunal's statutory mandate, where a subject-matter falls within the Act, High Courts are ousted of jurisdiction except insofar as supervisory jurisdiction under Article 136 remains with the Supreme Court. The Court rejected the contention that the High Court retains jurisdiction simply because claimants were casual employees or because employment had terminated; jurisdiction is assessed by reference to the subject-matter (recruitment/conditions of service) and statutory sweep, not the label 'casual' or the post-termination status. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where a dispute concerning recruitment or conditions of service of persons appointed to public services/posts under the Union falls within Section 14, High Courts lack jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions on those matters; such remedy must be sought before the Tribunal. Obiter - general statements on the desirability of broad tribunal jurisdiction as a matter of policy. Conclusion: The High Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the respondents' writ petitions because the subject-matter of the claims was within the exclusive domain of the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 14 of the 1985 Act. Issue 3 - Effect of casual employment status and post-termination cessation of master-servant relationship on tribunal jurisdiction Legal framework: The Act's scope extends to 'conditions of service' and persons appointed to public services and posts; Article 323A contemplates disputes relating to recruitment and service conditions. The legal question is whether 'casual' engagement or termination removes the dispute from the Act's ambit. Precedent treatment: The Court treated the question as one of substance rather than form; no authority was cited to hold that casual status or post-termination status removes a claim from the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court identified a self-contradiction in the respondents' position: they asserted employment under the Union to claim continued service yet argued they were no longer in a master-servant relationship to invoke High Court jurisdiction. The Court held that such a dichotomous stance is impermissible. A substantive claim for continuation, recognition of temporary status, or redress for wrongful termination is a claim relating to conditions of service and recruitment and therefore within the Tribunal's jurisdiction regardless of the casual nature of the employment or that the relationship had ceased after termination. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Casual nature of employment or cessation of the master-servant relationship upon termination does not, per se, exclude the dispute from the Tribunal's jurisdiction when the claim challenges termination and seeks continuation/status in service. Obiter - admonition against taking self-contradictory positions to manipulate forum. Conclusion: Casual/daily-wage employment and post-termination cessation of the relationship do not exclude claimants from proceeding before the Tribunal; claimants asserting continued employment or service-related rights must seek remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Final Disposition and Legal Consequence (Court's Conclusion) The Court concluded that the remedy for the respondents lay before the Central Administrative Tribunal and that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions; accordingly the impugned High Court judgment was set aside and the writ petitions dismissed. The Court allowed the appeals without costs.