Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose when daily wage employees of the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board claimed equal pay on par with regular clerks, alleging that they were performing duties of clerks but were paid only daily wages as T. Mates. The employees approached the High Court, which accepted their contention and directed payment of equal pay. The Board appealed to the Supreme Court challenging both the merits and the jurisdiction of the High Court. During the pendency of the proceedings, a settlement was reached between the Board and the employees, and earlier writ petitions concerning the same issue were disposed of by the Supreme Court on May 10, 1991, in terms of that settlement. Consequently, the sole surviving legal issue was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to decide the dispute of daily wage employees working under the Board after the enactment of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The appellants contended that under Section 14 of the Act, all jurisdiction, power and authority exercisable by all courts except the Supreme Court had been vested in the Central Administrative Tribunal, and therefore the High Court lacked jurisdiction. The respondents argued that since they were daily wage employees not holding any civil post and engaged only on casual basis, the provisions of the Act were not attracted. The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in Union of India v. Deep Chand Pandey, where the same contention was raised regarding casual typists. In that case, the Court had held that the scope of Article 323-A is very wide, and by enacting the 1985 Act, the Parliament had exercised this power in almost full measure. An examination of Section 14 and Section 3(q) indicated 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. Following this precedent, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had been divested of its power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, and such jurisdiction vested in the Administrative Tribunals constituted under the Act. However, because the claims on merits had been settled between the parties, the Court declined to interfere with the matter. The appeals were accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Jurisdiction of High Court and Administrative Tribunals - Section 14 and Section 3(q), Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; Article 226 and Article 323-A, Constitution of India - Scope of Administrative Tribunals Act is very wide and not to receive narrow interpretation; High Court divested of jurisdiction over service matters covered by the Act - The Supreme Court considered whether daily wage employees of a State Electricity Board, not appointed to a substantive post, fell within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal and outside High Court's writ jurisdiction. Relying on Union of India v. Deep Chand Pandey, the Court held that Section 14 read with Section 3(q) of the Act vests all jurisdiction, power and authority in the Administrative Tribunals, excluding the Supreme Court, and that the High Court was divested of its power under Article 226. The Court declined to interfere with the High Court's order because the merits of the equal pay claim had been settled between the parties. Held that the High Court had been divested of jurisdiction and the matter vested in the Administrative Tribunals under the Act. B) Service Law - Equal Pay for Equal Work - Settlement of Service Dispute - Not mentioned - Equal pay claim for daily wage employees performing clerical duties was resolved by a settlement between the employer and employees - The respondents, appointed as daily wage T. Mates but allegedly performing clerical duties, sought equal pay with regular clerks. The High Court had directed equal pay. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant brought a settlement to the Court's notice; earlier writ petitions were disposed of in terms of that settlement by order dated May 10, 1991. The Court observed that the controversy on merits no longer survived. Held that since the claims on merits had been settled, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the matter and disposed of the appeals without costs.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain claims of daily wage employees of the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board for equal pay after the enactment of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, given that such employees were not appointed to a regular post.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had been divested of its power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the same vested in the Administrative Tribunals constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. However, since the claims on merits had been settled, the Court declined to interfere with the matter. The appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 14 read with Section 3(q) of Administrative Tribunals Act
- 1985 vests all jurisdiction in Administrative Tribunals
- High Court divested under Article 226
- scope of Article 323-A wide
- daily wage employees covered under Act
- equal pay dispute settled
- res integra principle not applicable
