JUDGMENT
D.P. Wadhwa, C.J.
1. The appellant is Union of India in the Ministry of Railways through the General Manager, Eastern Railways.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.2.1995 of a learned Single Judge whereby he dismissed the writ application of the appellant. In the writ application, the appellant had prayed, in effect, for transfer of proceeding or Execution case No. 4 of 1983 pending in the court of Subordinate Judge, Palamau, to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, in view of the provision of Section 29(1) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (for short, the Act) which had come into force with effect from November 1, 1985.
3. Learned Single Judge held that the provision of Sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Act did not apply in the present case. Section 29(1) is as under ;-
Every suit or other proceeding pending before any court or other authority immediately before the date of establishment of a Tribunal under this Act, being a suit or proceeding the cause of action whether on it is based is such that it would have been, if it has arisen after such establishment within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal shall stand transferred on that date to such Tribunal.
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to any appeal pending as aforesaid before a High Court.
4. To understand the rival contentions. I am briefly refer to the nature of proceedings which are sought to be transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal.
5. Respondent No. 2 Shoe Bachan Pathak filed a Suit, in a representative capacity in the court of Subordinate Judge, Palamau, in the year 1981. The suit was for a declaration that he and his colleagues whom he represented, were entitled to get salary for all the period for which it had been shown that there was break in service and that they were entitled to get salary at enhanced rate as decided by the Railway Board at which rate it had been paid in other Divisions of the Eastern Railway. By judgment dated January 31, 1983, the Suit was decreed and decree was drawn up on Feb. 14, 1983. The principal relief noted in the decree was a declaration “that the plaintiff and his colleagues represented through him are entitled to get salary from all period of break up of service and of the enhanced rate of salary as implemented in other Sections.”
6. Union of India preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree which was dismissed by the learned Judge of this Court on August 28, 1989. It may be noted that execution of the judgment and decree was also filed by Sheo Bachan Pathak in the trial Court which was dismissed on an objection raised by the Union of India. Against that a Misc. Appeal was filed by Sheo Bachan Patna which was allowed by the learned Single Judge on the same date but by a breif separate order. In the operative portion of the judgment allowing the appeal. It was mentioned that counsel for the Union of India had submitted that the amount claimed by the workmen was not correct. The Court said, if that be so, the Court below would hear the Railway Administration on this point alone. During the pendency of the appeal by the Union of India in the High Court, Sheo Bachan Pathak filed the Execution proceeding being Execution case No. 4 of 1983 in the court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Palamau, for execution of the decree. In that he had stated that the amount claimed in the suit was to be worked out on the basis of rate (s) of wages admissible to workmen on the basis of the Railway Board’s letter dated June 12, 1974 which had been addressed to all the General Managers of the Railways. This execution was dismissed and, as noted above, revived after judgment dated August 28.1989 of this Court.
7. Meanwhile on coming into force of the Act, a communication had been addressed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal to the Registrars of all the High Courts for transfer of cases from the High Courts/Subordinate Courts, to the Central Administrative Tribunal which letter was in turn sent to all the District Judges and the Subordinate Judges. In this letter attention was drawn to the provisions of Section 29 of the Act seeking transfer of suits and proceedings pending in the civil courts.
8. During the course of hearing of this appeal, it was mentioned before us that in the execution proceedings, a Pleader Commissioner had been appointed to calculate the wages which might be found due to the workmen in terms of the judgment in the suit filed by Sheo Bachan Pathak. It is stated that some fictitious names of workmen were added and a huge demand of over Rs. 17 lakhs was created for which the execution proceeding was in progress. 1 do not think, we are concerned with all this as the issue before us is quite limited and, that is, if the execution proceedings now pending in the court of Subordinate Judge, Palamau, should be transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench, in terms of Section 29(1) of the Act. In the nitration of events, there may be some variation of facts, but that again would not be quite relevant for our purposes for the decision of this appeal.
9. As noted above, the Act came into force on November 1, 1985. The jurisdiction of the civil courts ceased thereafter. It is not disputed that the subject matter of dispute would be covered under the provisions of the Act and only the Central Administrative Tribunal would have the jurisdiction in the case like this. The contention of the decree-holder, however, has been that Section 29(1) does not apply as at the relevant time when the Act came into force, the matter was pending in the High Court in two appeals; one against the judgment and decree by the Union of India and the other by Sheo Bachan Pathak against the dismissal of execution proceeding filed by him in the trial court. The appeal of Union of India was dismissed while that by Sheo Pathak was allowed and this was by two separate judgments dated August 28, 1989 which have been referred to above.
10. It is difficult to appreciate the submission of the decree-holder that since at the relevant time when the Act came into force appeals were pending in the High Court and after disposal thereof, when the execution filed by the decree-holder proceed further, it could not have been transferred in view of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Act. That proviso, to our mind, applies only to appeals in the High Court which are pending and not to the proceedings in the courts below, even though those proceedings might have been started after disposal of the appeals. Earlier to the decision by this Court on August 28, 1989, Union of India could not have asked for transfer of the execution proceeding to the Central Administrative Tribunal inasmuch, as the execution application had been dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge and the appeal against that was pending the High Court. The High Court said that the execution proceeding was valid and therefore, that proceeding was again started, filed earlier. It was at that stage that a request was made to have the proceeding transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal. The effect of the provision of Sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Act is automatic and all such proceedings pending in the civil courts stand transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is not that effect to Section 29 is over thereafter and that the provision of this Section would be inapplicable to proceedings revived after the coming into force of the Act which proceedings though had been filed earlier to November 11, 1985. Those proceedings shall be deemed to be pending as on the date of enforcement of the Act. After this date, no such proceedings can be filed in a civil court. In the present case, the execution proceedings had been filed earlier to November 11, 1985 but was dismissed. The dismissal by the subordinate court was held invalid by the judgment of the Court dated August 28, 1989 and the execution proceeding was revived and it shall therefore be deemed to be pending as on November 11, 1985.
11. Learned Single Judge found that there was also difficulty in execution of the decree passed by the civil court by the Central Administrative Tribunal. I do not think that also is correct in any way. The decree of civil court can be executed by the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 27 of the Act and Rule 24 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedural) Rules, 1987.
12. Mr. K.K. Sahay, learned Counsel for the appellant referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in P.L. Kantha Rao v. State of Andhra Prasad and Ors. A.I.R. 1985 SC 807. In this the Court held that the term ‘proceeding’ in Section 29 of the Act was a very wide term, to mean ‘prescribed course of action to enforce the legal right’. The execution is a step in the judicial process. It seeks to enforce the final result to realise the result of the adjudication. The execution proceeding would, therefore, be a proceeding within the meaning of Section 29 of the Act and in terms thereof, after 1.11.1985, civil courts will have’ no jurisdiction in the matter. In this view of the matter, the Execution case No. 4 of 1983 would stand transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, as on 1.11.1985. Since the Civil Courts ceased jurisdiction in the matter on that day, all orders made by it after this date would be non est. We hold accordingly’.
13. This appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the Execution case No. 4 of 1983 transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench and proceedings thereunder shall start afresh as on 1.11.1985. In the circumstances, there will be no orders as to costs.