High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 2737/2013 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MUSAHARY Judgment and Order {oral} (Ansari, J)
Legal Reasoning
For the purpose of clarifying the position of law, one may take note of ch reads as under: (cid:28)35. sub-Section (3) of Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunal’s Act, 1985, which contains the procedure and power of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Sub-Se ction (3) of Section 22 reads as under: (cid:28)22. (1) **** **** **** (2) **** **** **** (3) A Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging its functions under t his Act, the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit, in respect of the following m atters, namely : (a) Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oa th; (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) subject to the provisions of section 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), requisitioning any public record or document or copy of such **** record or document from any office; **** 36. On a bare reading of Clause (c) of sub-Section (3) of Section 22, it bec omes clear that the Central Administrative Tribunal has the power to receive evi dence on affidavits and it has also the power to requisition any public record o r document or any copy of such record or document from any office and that it ha s also the power to summon and enforce attendance of any person and examining hi m on oath. There is, thus, no impediment in determining and settling the disput ed questions of fact by the learned Tribunal by taking recourse to it powers as embodied in sub-Section (3) of Section 22. (cid:29) **** (cid:29)
Arguments
We have heard Mr. HA Sarkar, learned counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr . R Sarma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, along with Ms. R Borah, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner herein approached the learned Central Administrative Trib unal, Guwahati Bench with Original Appeal No. 167 of 2012, his case being briefl y stated thus: The applicant had been engaged as Water Carrier, on casual basis, with effect from 01-09-1993 and had continued to work for more than 240 days. A scheme for granting temporary status of such casual employees was introduced by the respondents herein by issuing office memorandum, dated 19-09-1993, which cl early stated that casual employees were to be granted temporary status if they w ere ’presently’ employed, meaning thereby that any person, who stood engaged, on 10-09-1993, as a casual employee and had worked in a given year for more than 2 40 days, was entitled to be conferred temporary status, but the respondents did not, despite the fact that the petitioner’s case was covered by office memorandu m, dated 10-09-1993, aforementioned, granted temporary status on the applicant-p etitioner. 3. Resisting the Original Application, the respondents took the stand that the applicant-petitioner had, for the first time, been engaged on 01-12-1993 and since his date of engagement, as a casual employee, was beyond 19-09-1993, whic h was the date of enforcement of the said office memorandum, the applicant-petit ioner was not covered by the said office memorandum and the Original Application deserved to be dismissed. 4. By its order, dated 23-01-2013, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the O riginal Application. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his Original Application, the applicant is, now, before us, with the present application made under Article 2 26 of the Constitution of India, seeking requisite relief. 5. While considering the present application, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it needs to be pointed out that the learned Tribunal has clearly noted, at para-9 of the impugned order, that a submission has been made , on his behalf that the applicant, that the applicant was employed with effect from 01-09-1993 and that the respondent contended, as observed at para 11, that the applicant had been engaged on 01-12-1993. There was, thus, clearly a disputed question of fact, which required det 6. ermination by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, however, without assig ning any reason whatsoever, has concluded, at para 13, that the applicant (i.e., the petitioner herein) was engaged undisputedly, on 01-12-1993. How the learned Tribunal has come to such a conclusion is devoid of any reason. In order to mak e, what we have observed hereinbefore, clear, we reproduce hereinbelow para 13 o f the impugned order, which reads as under: (cid:28)13. Thus, though the 1999 Scheme provided for conferment of Temporary status on casual labourers, the particulars, shown by the respondents/authorities conc erned, indicated that, in respect of Assam Circle, there was no eligible casual labourer for conferment of Temporary status. (cid:29) Considering the fact that the finding has been rendered by the learned T 7. ribunal without assigning any reason whatsoever, the finding cannot, but be trea ted as perverse and needs to be interfered with. 8. Coupled with the above, we need to also point out that disputed question of facts are required to be decided by the learned Administrative Tribunal unde r the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, by taking evidence. This becomes eviden t, if one takes note of Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, whi
Decision
9. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this writ pe tition partly succeeds. The impugned order, dated 23-01-2013, is hereby set asid e and the matter is remanded to the learned Tribunal for determination of the di sputed question of fact, which has been raised in the Original Application, name ly, as to whether the applicant-petitioner was engaged, as a casual employee on 01-09-1993 as contended by the applicant or whether he was engaged, as a casual employee, on 01-12-1993 as contended by the respondents and, then, decide the li s in accordance with law. 10. and disposed of. 11. With the above observations and directions, this writ petitions shall st No order as to costs.