http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

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,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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.