CWP No.13316 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.13316 of 2010 Date of decision: 30.08.2010 Surinder Kaur ....Petitioner Versus U.T. Chandigarh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Kamal Jeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.K. Joshi, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) Preliminary objection, to the maintainability of the writ petition, has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3, on the ground, that the lis raised in this petition, falls within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. In support of preliminary objection, the learned counsel for the Union Territory, placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Union of India Vs. P. Lal, IPS, and others, 2001 LAB.I.C. 3088, wherein this Court was pleased to lay down as under: - “22. It is thus clear that the Tribunals continue to have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain all types of service disputes and complaints subject, of course, to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to directly entertain petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, there does not appear to be any valid ground to give a restricted meaning to the provisions of Sections 14 and 15 read with Section 3(q) and 19 of the 1985 Act so as to confine jurisdiction, powers and authority of CWP No.13316 of 2010 -2- the Tribunals to entertain applications which directly affect the service matters/service conditions of the applicant. If a narrow view is taken about the authority and jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain applications only against actions, decisions or orders which directly affect the applicant, then the very object of creating special machinery for adjudication of the service disputes will get defeated because in that event, more than one judicial forums will have the jurisdiction to entertain different types of service disputes. This will totally destroy the scheme of the 1985 Act. Therefore, keeping in view the well recognised rule that if two interpretations of a status are possible, then the Court would adopt the one which furthers the object of the legislation and makes it purposeful and discard that which may defeat its object, we hold that the Tribunals constituted under the 1985 Act have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaints or dispute in respect of recruitment, matters relating to recruitment, service matters and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.” In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw this writ petition to avail his statutory remedy by approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh. Dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty granted. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 30, 2010 R.S.