Gujarat High Court
R S Bhalia & 8 vs Union Of India & 3 on 7 July, 2014
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Mohinder Pal
C/SCA/8101/2013 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8101 of 2013
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5706 of 2014
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8101 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any
order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
================================================================
R S BHALIA & 8....Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & 3....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR P P MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 9
MR SP MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 9
MR MK VAKHARIA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
Page 1 of 4
C/SCA/8101/2013 JUDGMENT
MR SHAKEEL A QURESHI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 4
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
Date : 07/07/2014 ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Petitioners, employees under the Union of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, have challenged recovery initiated by the respondents. Such recovery are challenged on the various grounds including that no hearing was granted to them. Admittedly, they are permanent and regular employees of the Union of India. In view of provisions contained in Section 14 read with Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, subject matter of this writ petition would be within the purview of jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that large number of similarly situated persons of the same organization had also have similar grievance approached various Tribunals in the country, in our opinion, therefore, the petitioners must first approach Central Administrative Tribunal.
3. Counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that there was a breach of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned orders and further since the writ petition has already been admitted, the petitioners may not be relegated to alternative remedy.
4. In case of L.Chandra Kumar V/s. Union of India and Page 2 of 4 C/SCA/8101/2013 JUDGMENT others reported in AIR 1997 SC 1125 in the context of the constitutional validity of Administrative Tribunals Act held and observed as under:
"99.In view of the reasoning adopted by us, we hold that clause 2(d) of Article 323A and Clause 3 (d) of Article 323B, to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional. Section 28 of the Act and the "exclusion of jurisdiction" clauses in all other legislations enacted under the aegis of Article 323A and 323B would, to the same extent, be unconstitutional. The jurisdiction conferred uipon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other Courts and Tribunals may perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution. The Tribunals created under Article 323A and Article 323B of the Constitution are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules. All decisions of these Tribunals will, however be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls. The Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act like courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislation (except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged)by overlooking the jurisdiction of the concerned Tribunal. Section 5(6)of the Act is valid and constitutional and is to be interpreted in the manner we have indicated".
5. In the result, writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy. If the petitioners file such original application before the concerned Tribunal and also prayed for condonation of delay, the Tribunal would bear in mind while considering such application the fact that the petitioners were bona- fide pursuing the remedy in the interregnum. Rule discharged.
6. In view of dismissal of petition, present Civil Page 3 of 4 C/SCA/8101/2013 JUDGMENT Application stands disposed of. Rule discharged.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (MOHINDER PAL, J.) ashish Page 4 of 4