Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.17 seconds)
Bansi Lal vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 21 March, 2023 cites

Union Of India & Ors vs Subir Mukharji & Ors on 29 April, 1998

7. In the aforesaid premises the contention of Mr. Mahajan, learned senior counsel that the Central Administrative Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the question of service conditions of such Dhobis has to be sustained and consequently, the impugned order of the Tribunal has to be set aside. We accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and dismiss the OA. This appeal is allowed, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. Also in the present case, the respondent No.2 assigned the job of house-keeping to the contractors and the payment for contractual work was made to the contractors. No direct payment was made by the said respondent to the applicants herein. In the absence of the contract being declared camouflage, no direct relationship of employer and employee can be found to be established between the respondents No. 1 and 2 and the applicants herein. The applicants cannot even be treated the employees of the respondents No. 1 and 2 far less the holders of civil posts in connection with their affairs. As far as the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others Vs. Subir Mukharji and Others (ibid) is concerned, in the said case, Hon'ble Supreme Court could find that the respondents happened to be members of M/s Bandel Handling Porters Cooperative Society Ltd. and there was no denial by the appellants that the work performed by them was of perennial nature. Further in view of the fact that the appellants were working on contract basis continuously or uninterruptedly since 1988, Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the directions issued by Central Administrative Tribunal in its order dated 13.03.1997 as quite fair in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the said case, while refusing to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case, their Lordships no where ruled that the Central Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction over the matter, where the application is filed by the employees of the contractors.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 18 - S P Kurdukar - Full Document

Awadhesh K. Singh And Others vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 April, 2012

As far as the judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Awadhesh Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors is concerned, the ratio deci dendi in the same is that in the case of contractual worker either the Central Administrative Tribunal or the Industrial Tribunal have the jurisdiction and when the alternate mechanism is provided in the law, the petitioner could not have invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. When the Hon'ble High Court refused to entertain the Writ Petition, it was no where held that the employees of the contractor can approach the Central Administrative Tribunal but it was viewed that in the matter of contractual employee either the Central Administrative Tribunal or the Industrial Tribunal had the jurisdiction. In fact, where the department directly engaged somebody on contract basis and not through the contractor, the grievance of contract employee is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and in such cases where the work is assigned to the contractor and it is the employee of the contractor who has a grievance, the grievance can be looked into by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal under the Central Govt. in terms of the CLRA. Besides, we are also convinced with the plea raised by the respondents that when the applicants rightly approached the Industrial Tribunal for abolition of the contract and regularization of their services for part of the relief i.e. for continuance of their contractual service, they cannot approach the Tribunal. Once the Industrial Tribunal adjudicates the issue of abolition of contract and regularization of the applicants, they could also adjudicate the issue of their entitlement to continue in service. Thus, we find that the Original Application is not amenable to our jurisdiction and is also barred by principle of res sub-judice.
Delhi High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 27 - V K Jain - Full Document
1