UMESH KORGA BHANDARI versus MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 443 · Decided: 08-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

/ 
·-
UMESH KORGA BHANDARI 
V. 
MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. AND ANR. 
AUGUST 8, 2005 
[ARJJIT PASAYAT AND H.K. SEM;., JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 19(/)-Termination ofServices-
According to Office Memorandum and Notification post was civil and did not 
A 
B 
fall in the purview of Industrial Disputes Act-Dispute-Reference to Industrial 
Tribunal-Propriety of reference-Plea that in view of decision of Supreme 
C 
Court reference was justified-Held: The decision of Supreme Court did not 
adjudicate that the appropriate forum for the holder of civil post was whether 
Tribunal of Administrative Tribunal-And the effect of the Office Memorandum 
and Notification was not considered in the case-Matter referred to three 
Judges Bench-Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 
Appellant-emoloyees of departmental canteen run by respondent, 
challenged their termination from service. The matter was referred to 
Central Government Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal as well as Single 
Judge of High Court in Writ Petition held that the case was maintainable 
D 
by the Tribunal under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and held the 
E 
termination not justified. Division Bench of High Court held that reference 
under the Act was not maintainable as the appellants were holding civil 
post and the appropriate forum was Central Administrative Tribunal. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant-employees contended that since a 
three Judge Bench of Supreme Court, had held that Telephone Nigam is 
F 
an industry, the reference to the Tribunal was not without jurisdiction. 
Respondent employer contended that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction 
to deal with the matter as it was not decided by decision of three judges 
that whether the appellants could have moved the Tribunal and not the 
Administrative Tribunal; and since the effect of Office Memorandum and 
a Notification, wherein it was indicated that posts in the canteen were civil 
posts and hence do not come under the purview of ID Act, were not 
considered. 
G 
Referring the matter for hearing by three-Judges Bench, the Court H 
443 
444 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: In General Manager, Telecom* there was no adjudication by 
B 
a three Judge Bench, of the question whether the holder of civil posts 
could move the Central Government Industrial Tribunal or the only 
forum to seek relief was the Administrative Tribunal. Further, the effect 
of the Notifications and Office Memorandums were not considered in the 
said case. It cannot be said that the said decision has concluded the matter 
against the present respondents. Hence the matter is remitted for hearing 
by a three-Judge Bench. The basic issue to be considered would be 
whether a person holding civil post can seek relief under the ID Act on 
the basis that he was a workman. (4.f6-E-F; 447-E-F] 
C 
*General Manager, Telecom v. Srinivasa Rao and Ors., (1997] 8 SCC 
D 
E 
767; Bombay Canteen Employee's Association v. Union of India, (1997) 6 
SCC 723 and Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post Vaikam and Ors. v. Theyyam 
Joseph and Ors., (1996) 8 SCC 489, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6462 of2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.3.2001 of the Bombay High 
Court in L.P.A. 90 of 1998 in W.P. No.6337 of 1996. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 6463 and 6464 of 2003. 
Ajay Majithia, Manish Jain and Yash Pal Dhingrafor the Appellant. 
M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Adv., V.P. Sharma and Vasudevan Raghavan for 
F 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. : Challenge in these appeals is to the correctness 
of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court 
G 
allowing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam 
Limited (in short 'MTNL'), the respondent no. I. The appellants were 
working in the Canteens maintained by the Departmental CanteerfCOm~ 
Appellants questioned the legality of termination of their services. The 
Government oflndia, Ministry of Labour, referred the matter for adjudication 
H 
by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.II, Bombay (in short 
\ 
.I 
_i 
... 
.... 
U.K. BHANDARI v. M.T.N.L. [PASAYAT, J.] 
445 
'CGIT'). Preliminary objection was raised by the present respondents on the 
A 
ground that the concerned workmen were holding civil posts of the Central 
Government and, therefore, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'ID Act') 
has no application. The CGJT did not accept this stand and held that th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.