MANGT OF CCW Vs. PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary issue raised by learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the reference before the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal (the Tribunal) was not competent in as much as jurisdiction in the case vested with the Central Administrative Tribunal since the Respondent/workman was a Government servant.

(2.) There is no dispute that the Petitioner is an industry nor is there any dispute that the Respondent6/workman is a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act). Quite clearly, the Respondent/ workman is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the machinery available under the Act not with standing the existence of the Administrative Tribunals Act.

(3.) It may be pointed out that in A.Padmavalley Vs. CPWD, 1991(1) SLR (CAT) 245, a Bench of five members of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderbad Bench took the view that in matters pertaining to the Industrial Disputes Act, an applicant seeking relief must ordinarily exhaust the remedy available under that Act. I find no reason to take a different view and it must be held that the Respondent/workman was entitled to avail the benefits of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.