HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, SHIMLA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus TIRATH RAJ AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 248 · Decided: 01-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, 
SHIMLA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
TIRATH RAJ AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
B 
SEPTEMBER 1, 1995 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
C 
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 : Tribunal-Jurisdiction-Dispute of 
daily wages employees-Held Tlibunal has jurisdiction to decide-High Court 
is divested of jurisdiction to decide the dispute. 
The appellants, who were appointed on daily wages as T. Mates with 
the appellant-Electricity Board, claimed salary at par with regular Clerks 
D on the ground that they were performing the duties of the post of Clerks. 
. E 
F 
G 
The High Court allowed the claim by holding that (i) it has jurisdiction to 
decide the dispute of the daily wages employees working under the appel-
lant· Board; (ii) since the daily wages employees are not appointed to a 
post the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 was not applicable • 
In appeals to this Court on the question whether the High Court has 
jurisdiction to decide the dispute of the daily wage employees working 
under the appellant-Board : 
Disposing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : In view of the law laid down in Deep Chand Pandey's case* the 
High Court had been divested of the power and jurisdiction under Article 
226 of the constitution and the same vested in the Administrative Tribunal 
constituted in that behalf under Act. However, since the claims on merits 
have been settled, there is no reason to interfere with the matter. [250-D-E] 
*Union of India v.Deep Chand Pandey, AIR (1993) SC 382, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8086 of 
1995 Etc. 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.7.89 of the Himachal 
248 
-
H.P.S.E. BOARD v. T. RAJ 
249 
Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 647 of 1984. 
Naresh K. Sharma, C.P. Pandey, K.K. Lahiri, Gaurave Kumar, 
Ravindra Kumar, B.S. Gupta and A.M. Khanwilkar for the appearing 
parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
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. lri 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. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
The only question that remains for decision is whether the High F 
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 v. Deep Chand Pandey, AIR G 
(1993) SC 382, Same contention was raised with regard to the casual typists 
workmg 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 H 
250 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
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 : 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
"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 198
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.