MARIA Vs. SOUTHERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the Original Petition is to stay the disbursement of amount towards the D. C. R. G. of late Sri. K. M. George employed in Thiruvananthapuram Railway Division as Khalasi worker until the final adjudication of the subject matter in O. P. No. 539/97 pending before the Family court, Thiruvananthapuram.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners they are the legal wife of later Sri. K. M. George and his son respectively. Since the matter relates to payment of gratuity to a late employee of the Railways, a preliminary objection has been raised that this Original Petition is not maintainable in this Court in view of the provisions contained in the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

(3.) THE second ruling which the learned counsel relied on is the one reported in L, Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (MR 1997 SC 1125 ). THE following paragraphs were read to me by the learned counsel: "92. We. may add here that under the existing system, direct appeals have been provided from the decisions of all Tribunals to the Supreme Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution. In view of our above mentioned observations, this situation will also stand modified. In the view that we have taken, no appeal from the decision of a Tribunal will directly lie before the Supreme Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution; but instead, the aggrieved party will be entitled to move the High Court under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution and from the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court the aggrieved party could move this Court under Art. 136 of the constitution". "99. In view of the reasoning adopted by us, we hold that Clause 2 (d) of Art. 323b, to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Arts. 2267 227 and 32 of the constitution, are unconstitutional. S. 28 of the Act and the "exclusion of jurisdiction" clauses in all other legislations enacted under the Aegis of arts. 323 A and 323b would to the same extent, be constitutional. THE jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Arts. 226/227 and upon the supreme Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution is part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other courts and Tribunals may perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred by Arts. 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution. THE Tribunals created under Art. 323a and Art. 323b of the Constitution are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules. All decisions of these Tribunals will, however, he subject to scrutiny before a division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned tribunal falls. THE Tribunals will nevertheless, continue to act like courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High Court even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except where the legislation which creates the particular tribunal is challenged by over looking the jurisdiction of the concerned tribunal. S. 5 (6) of the Act is valid and constitutional and is to be interpreted in the manner we have indicated. " Thus, it is obvious that the Supreme Court was of definite view that this Court can entertain the petition under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution against the decision of Central Administrative Tribunal. It does not go to show as contended by the learned counsel, that a party can approach this Court directly without resorting to the remedy under the Central administrative Tribunal Act.