Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

34. Heard. We have given our anxious consideration to all the pleadings made and arguments advanced before us. We have also gone through OA No.-1467/2013 MA No.-1440/2014 MA No.-1279/2015 MA No.-2609/2015 MA No.-1801/2013 the pleadings before the Madras Bench as filed, and the orders of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam on the orders passed by Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal, in OP (CAT) No.3714/2011(Z), and the judgments of Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. We beg to disagree with all these orders and judgments, for the simple reason that all of them are sub-silentio, as they have all failed to take into account the fact that from the Department of Telecommunication of the Union of India, first the Corporation called Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL, in short) had been created, and then another Corporation, covering the telephone operations in the rest of India except Mumbai and Delhi, had been created under the name of BSNL, which Corporation came into being w.e.f. 01.10.2000. We are, rather, bound by the law as laid down by our jurisdictional High Court, the Delhi High Court.

(Emphasis supplied).

36. Even though the Delhi High Court has in the above case very rightly taken the correct position of law into consideration that as on 01.10.2000, all Group-B, Group-C and Group-D employees transferred to BSNL from the erstwhile Department of Telecom Services under the OA No.-1467/2013 MA No.-1440/2014 MA No.-1279/2015 MA No.-2609/2015 MA No.-1801/2013 Ministry of Telecommunications were absorbed in BSNL w.e.f. 01.10.2000, and it has been held clearly in Para-8 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment (supra) that it cannot be said that the rules applicable to the Government servants, would continue to apply to such Government servants who are absorbed/initially absorbed even when such rules have not been adopted by the concerned PSU, however, this preposition of law was not noticed or/and had been left sub-silentio by the Punjab & Haryana High Court while deciding the case before it. Therefore, this Bench of the Tribunal being under the writ jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, and not being under the writ jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court, we are bound by the above reproduced orders of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, and we are at liberty to treat the orders of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court as sub-silentio, and, therefore, per incuriam, since the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had not noticed the correct position in law, as has been clarified by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.

OA No.-1467/2013 MA No.-1440/2014 MA No.-1279/2015 MA No.-2609/2015 MA No.-1801/2013 "41. Does this principle extend and apply to a conclusion of law, which was neither raised nor preceded by any consideration. In other words can such conclusions be considered as declaration of law? Here again the English courts and jurists have carved out an exception to the rule of precedents. It has been explained as rule of sub-silentio. "A decision passes sub-silentio, in the technical sense that has come to be attached to that phrase, when the particular point of law involved in the decision is not perceived by the court or present to its mind.". In Lancaster Motor Company (London) Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd. the Court did not feel bound by earlier decision as it was rendered 'without any argument, without reference to the crucial words of the rule and without any citation of the authority'. It was approved by this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur. The bench held that, 'precedents sub-silentio and without argument are of no moment'.

OA No.-1467/2013 MA No.-1440/2014 MA No.-1279/2015 MA No.-2609/2015 MA No.-1801/2013

51. Therefore, any declaration or conclusion arrived at without the proper point in law having been raised and considered by the Court concerned, cannot be deemed to be declaration of law or authority of a general nature, binding as a precedent. This concept is an exception to the Rules of precedence, and is stated as Rule sub-silentio. A decision passes sub-silentio in the technical sense when the particular point of law involved in the decision is not perceived by the Court, or present to its mind. This aspect had been considered in detail by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Gurnam Kaur (1989) 1 SCC 101, in Paragraphs 11 & 12 of its judgment, as follows:-