RAM GOPAL VERMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question involved is whether Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) jurisdiction extended to Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) also. Tribunal by impugned order dated 18.10.2000 has washed its hands off holding that it enjoyed no such jurisdiction. But petitioner was still wanting the Jurisdiction to be vested in it in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) Petitioner belongs to TES Group B service in Department of Telecommunication (DOT), while he :was on deputation .to MTNL, he was charged of some irregularities and finally placed under suspension i;n view of the pendency of criminal prosecution against him by order dated 3.4.2000 passed by Chief General Manager of MTNL. He challenged this in OA 789/2000 which was opposed by respondents on the . jurisdictional plea that Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain any complaint/grievance connected with service matters in MTNL. Tribunal accepted this position and dismissed petitioner's OA by impugned order dated 18.10.2000. Petitioner has now filed this petition assailing Tribunal's-order and for directing it to decide his OA on merits.

(3.) Petitioner's case is that he continued to be the employee of DOT and belonged to its TES Group B service inspite of his deputation to MTNL and therefore, was within his rights to seek redressal of his service grievance by the Tribunal. His counsel Mr .Kapoor submitted that though Central Government had not issued any notification under Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to bring MTNL within Tribunal jurisdiction, it was not required also in the present case because Tribunal was to examine (petitioner's service grievance who was admittedly holding a civil post in DOT and figured in the seniority list of TES Group B Officers even today. Apart from this, his order of' suspension though passed by the Chief General Manager, MTNL, was to be approved by DOT also making it a composite order in the process which was cognizable by Tribunal. 'Learned counsel for respondent Mr.Jayant Bhushan, on the contrary, submitted that MTNL, a Government Company could be brought within the jurisdiction of Tribunal only by a notification to be issued by the Central Government under Section 14(2) of the Act and 'so long as this notification was not issued. Tribunal could not assume jurisdiction in respect of any service matter under MTNL. He placed reliance on a Supreme Court judgment in A.P.State Electricity Board Vs. M.A.Hai Azami 1991 Supp (1) Supreme- Court Cases 660 which according to him squarely covered the point in issue ousting Tribunal"s jurisdiction over MTNL.