PETITIONER: HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,SHIMLA AND OTHERS E Vs. RESPONDENT: TIRATH RAJ AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT01/09/1995 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J) CITATION: 1996 AIR 615 1995 SCC (5) 678 JT 1995 (6) 517 1995 SCALE (5)224 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
W I T H
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8087 OF 1995
(Arising out SLP (C) Nos.3171 of 1990)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The respondents have been appointed on daily wages as
T. Mates with the appellant. It is their grievance that
though they were holding the posts of clerks and were
performing the duties of the post in the appellant’s Board,
they were not being paid the salaries on par with regular
clerks. Therefore, they are entitled to the payment of equal
pay on par with clerks. The High Court accepted that
contention and directed payment of equal pay on par with the
clerks.
Two contentions have been raised by the appellant in
the High Court. Firstly, on merits and secondly, on
jurisdiction. With regard to the merits, namely, their
entitlement to payment of equal pay for equal work on par
with the clerks, there was a settlement between the
appellant and the employees. In terms thereof, they were
paid the wages. That settlement was brought to the notice of
this Court in pending W.P. (C) No.788/87 and batch. This
Court, by order dated May 10, 1991, disposed of the writ
petitions in terms of the settlement. Thereby the
controversy on merits no longer survives.
The only question that remains for decision is whether
the High Court has jurisdiction to decide the dispute of the
daily wage employees working under the appellant. The High
Court took the view that since the daily wage employees are
not appointed to a post, the Administrative Tribunal Act,
1985 (for short, `the Act’) is not applicable. This
controversy also is no longer res integra. In Union of India
vs. Deep Chand Pandey, [AIR 1993 SC 382], same contention
was raised with regard to the casual typists working under
the Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Central Railway,
Gwalior. They contended that under s.14 of the Act, all the
jurisdiction, power and authority exercisable by all courts
excepting the Supreme Court have been vested in the Central
Administrative Tribunal. Therefore, it was contended for the
Union that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain
the claims of the casual typists on daily wage basis. It was
contended on behalf of the daily wage typists that since
they were not holding any civil post under the Union and
were engaged only on casual basis, the provisions of the Act
were not attracted. This Court negatived the contention and
held thus :
“The scope of Article 323-A permitting
the Parliament to legislate on the
subject covered therein is, having
regard to the language, very wide, and
by enacting 1985 Act this power has been
exercised in almost full measure. An
examination of Section 14 and Section
3(q) clearly indicates that the Act
covers a very wide field, and there is
nothing to suggest that the provisions
dealing with the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal should receive a narrow
interpretation. This is also supported
by the clarification offered by the then
Minister of Law, who was piloting the
Bill, while replying to the demand for
the further enumeration of the
conditions of service in Section 15 and
15. x x x x x x x x x x “
In view of the law thus laid, we hold that the High
Court had been divested, in the present case too, of the
power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
and the same vested in the Administrative Tribunals
constituted in that behalf under the Act.
However, since the claims on merits have been settled,
we decline to interfere with the matter. The appeal is
accordingly disposed of. No costs.
No.8087/95
C.A.@ SLP (C) No.3171/89
Leave granted.
In view of the above judgment, the appeal is disposed
of. No costs.