IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 24590 of 2005(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION SANCHAR BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOMMUNICATION, B.S.N.L., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, THRISSUR. 4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, DAK BHAVAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SC, BSNL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K. GOVINDAN NAIR, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. K.KUTTAN NAIR, REGULAR MAZDOOR, DEPARTMENT OF CANTEEN, CENTRAL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, TRICHUR, RESIDING AT PANICKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM, PANAMUKKU P.O., NEDUPUZHA, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 2. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY FOR R1 SRI P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.24590/05 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF O.A.NO.354/02 SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CAT, ALONG WITH ALL RELEVANT ANNEXURES. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE BSNL BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 3.9.02. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED 11.4.05 OF THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. TRUE COPY K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.24590 OF 2005- S ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners in this Writ Petition are Union of India and three Senior Officers of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. This Writ petition is filed by them challenging Exhibit P3 decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench on a preliminary point concerning the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain various Original Applications. The writ petitioners contend that since the CAT is not conferred with jurisdiction, by a notification under Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, to deal with the service matters of the employees of the BSNL, the Original Applications covered by Exhibit P3 are not maintainable. According to them, the CAT did not have any jurisdiction to deal with those matters. The said preliminary point was considered and certain principles were formulated by the CAT, which we find at Paragraph 13 of the impugned order. The Tribunal held that in the case of some Original Applications, W.P.(C)No.24590/05 -2- it has jurisdiction and in the case of some others, it does not have. Challenging the said decision on the preliminary point, as mentioned earlier, this Writ Petition is filed. 2. Now, it is common case that the Central Government have issued a notification under Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act conferring jurisdiction on the Central Administrative Tribunals to deal with service matters of employees of various organisations/Companies including Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. So, the respondents in this Writ Petition would submit that the challenge against Exhibit P3 has become academic and now the CAT has got necessary jurisdiction to deal with the matters in the Original applications concerned. But, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submitted that the point to be considered is whether, at the time of institution of the Original Applications, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain them. 3. Normally, if the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to deal with a particular matter is raised, it should be decided as one of the several points to be decided in the O.A. Rendering a decision on W.P.(C)No.24590/05 -3- the preliminary point and the affected parties taking up the matter before the High Court and thereafter before the Supreme Court, etc. have been condemned by the Apex Court in D.P.Maheshwari v. Delhi Admn. and others (AIR 1984 SC 153). Justice Chinnappa Reddy speaking for the Bench, held as follows: “ 1. It was just the other day that we were bemoaning the unbecoming devices adopted by certain employers to avoid decision of industrial disputes on merits. We noticed how they would raise various preliminary objections, invite decision on those objections in the first instance, carry the matter to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and to this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution and delay a decision of the real dispute for years, sometimes for over a decade, Industrial peace, one presumes, hangs in the balance in the meanwhile. We have now before us a case where a dispute originating in 1969 and referred for adjudication by the Government to the Labour Court W.P.(C)No.24590/05 -4- in 1970 is still at the stage of decision on a preliminary objection. There was a time when it was thought prudent and wise policy to decide preliminary issues first. But the time appears to have arrived for a reversal of that policy. We think it is better that tribunals, particularly those entrusted with the task of adjudicating labour disputes where delay may lead to misery and jeopardise, industrial peace, should decide all issues in dispute at the same time without trying some of them as preliminary issues. Nor should High Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution stop proceedings before a Tribunal so that a preliminary issue may be decided by them. Neither the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution nor the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.136 may be allowed to be exploited by those who can well afford to wait to the detriment of those who can ill afford to wait by dragging the latter from Court to Court for adjudication of peripheral W.P.(C)No.24590/05 -5- issues, avoiding decision on issues more vital to them. Article 226 and Art.136 are not meant to be used to break the resistance of workmen in this fashion. Tribunals and Courts who are requested to decide preliminary questions must therefore ask themselves whether such threshold part-adjudication is really necessary and whether it will not lead to other woeful consequences. After all tribunals like Industrial Tribunals are constituted to decide expeditiously special kinds of disputes and their jurisdiction to so decide is not to be stifled by all manner of preliminary objections and journeyings up and down. It is also worthwhile remembering that the nature of the jurisdiction under Article 226 is supervisory and not appellate while that under Art.136 is primarily supervisory but the Court may exercise all necessary appellate powers to do substantial justice. In the exercise of such jurisdiction neither the High Court nor this Court is required to be too astute to interfere with the W.P.(C)No.24590/05 -6- exercise of jurisdiction by special tribunals at interlocutory stages and on preliminary issues.” Though the above observations were made by the Apex Court regarding the matters arising under the Industrial Disputes Act, we feel that they will squarely apply to matters under the Administrative Tribunals Act also. The Tribunal has been constituted for speedy disposal of all cases concerning service matters of Central Government employees and notified institutions. So, the raising of preliminary objection and taking up the matter before higher forums, challenging the decision of the preliminary point, etc. have to be discouraged, in view of the above authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court. Therefore, we feel that it is unnecessary for this Court to finally decide on the question of jurisdiction in these proceedings. So, the challenge against Exhibit P3 is repelled. But, it is made clear that, the point raised by the petitioners regarding the lack of jurisdiction of Tribunal to entertain Original Applications at the time of institution and also the contention of the contesting respondents that in view of the new notification, the Tribunal has W.P.(C)No.24590/05 -7- necessary jurisdiction to deal with the matter and also the further contention of the contesting respondents that the said question is now academic only and has no bearing on the subject-matter, etc. are kept open. The Tribunal shall hear the parties and dispose of the Original Applications as expeditiously as possible.. The point regarding the lack of jurisdiction, if the same is again pressed by the writ petitioners, shall also be decided as one of the points. The writ petitioners, if they are aggrieved by the final order of the CAT, while challenging it before this Court, can raise the question of lack of jurisdiction also. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn