Union of India (UOI) and Others vs Jai Prakash Thakur and Others

The present petition has been filed initially by the Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, Bihar Circle, The Court had enquired whether the Union of India had filed the present petition. The Court was indicated that the instructions were locally. This inquiry was made because in so far as the claims of the Respondents before the Central Administrative Tribunal are concerned, the array of parties stood as, the Union of India and others. In the circumstances, it gave an impression to the Court that this matter perhaps may not have been seen seriously at the Secretary level of the Ministry of Telecommunication. However, as the array of parties has to conform to the array of parties before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petition had been certified as defective. The Union of India was added as a party subsequently.

All that had happened before the Central Administrative Tribunal is that upon claim having been filed by several employees of the Telecommunication department seeking a temporary status on their employment, an objection had been raised on behalf of the Telecommunication department that the Central Administrative Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the claim. Prima facie, the very purpose of establishing the Central Administrative Tribunal was that employees of the Government of India should be able to approach an independent tribunal for redressal of their grievances.

The objection on behalf of the Telecommunication department was that the persons seeking a claim before the Central Administrative Tribunal be unsuited. It was contended and is being contended before this Court that they should go before the Industrial Tribunal.

The plea seems inequitable. It is not the contention of the Telecommunication department that it accepts the claimants as workers with the Telecommunication department. If this were so then the matter before the Industrial Tribunal would only be one of fitment. But, if an employee particularly class IV post does not even have the confidence that he may meet an objection at both ends i.e., the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Industrial Tribunal, then it cannot be said that the Central Administrative Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the claim. Nothing is being spelt out whether the claimants hold a civil post under the Union of India or come within the category "a post filled by a civilian". The claimants are civilians. They only desire that the tribunal may consider whether they may be categorized under a "temporary" status.

The claim of these employees has yet to be considered on merits. On behalf of the Telecommunication department no statement is coming that it acknowledges these employees as workmen. If they were to be unsuited before Industrial Tribunal as not being workmen and were shown the door at the Central Administrative Tribunal also, then, the question will arise as to where these employees will go to?

The Court does not consider it appropriate that the department of Telecommunication should take an objection that the matter of these employees cannot even be considered by the Central Administrative Tribunal. They are at best casual workers and a Class IV category employee must have an avenue to have his status and category declared with easy access before a forum that has been established for this purpose, which the Central Administrative Tribunal is. Nothing is being spelt out whether the claimants hold a civil post under the Union of India or come within the category "a post filled by a civilian". The claimants are civilians and they do hold a post only desire that the tribunal may consider whether they may be categorized under a "temporary" status.

The Court does not consider it appropriate that the department of Telecommunication should take an objection that the matter of these employees cannot even be considered by the Central Administrative Tribunal. They are at best casual workers and the disputes upon their length of service are pending determination. A claim of status and that also as "temporary" in being considered should not shake the Telecommunication department, which opposes the claim in being examined on merits? In this regard, as no details have been given in the writ petition by the Petitioner, Union of India, in a matter relating to casual labour and grant of temporary status to them, a recent decision of the Supreme Court in re. Union of India v. Mohan Pal, etc. delivered on April 29, 2002, is relevant. This Court leaves this question as unanswered as the Court feels that in equity the employees are entitled to at least have the merits of their claim adjudged by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Dismissed.