PARESH B. CHAUHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed challenging judgment and order dated 12/01/2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad ('Central Administrative Tribunal' is herein after referred to as the 'Tribunal') in O.A. No. 607 of 2005. The Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the O.A. having found no merit in the Original Application. This petition was filed on 06/08/2007. From the order-sheet, it transpires that the matter was dismissed for default and it was restored by the Hon'ble Court (Coram: Hon'ble Miss R.M. Doshit (as she was then) & Mr. K.M. Thaker, JJ.) by order dated 07/10/2008 in Misc. Civil Application No. 1420 of 2008. It appears that thereafter, the matter was never taken up for hearing and first order found in the matter is dated 03/03/2009, whereby, notice was issued to the respondents returnable on 28/04/2009. Except adjournments, no order is found, until 10/12/2009. The Court issued fresh notice to Union of India for making necessary arrangement for their representation, as the learned counsel, who was earlier appearing for Union of India submitted that he is not appearing for Union of India. It is, thereafter, that the matter came for consideration of the Court on 22/02/2013 and on that day, the Court passed following order:--

(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the Original Application of the petitioner, though it is the case of the petitioner that his case was akin to the applicant of other application being Original Application No. 344 of 2004. Learned Advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to the documents, which are produced along with this petition including the documents produced by the respondents along with the reply, which are also on record being Annexure-R1 to R7. Learned advocate for the petitioner made twofold submissions-(i) the Hon'ble Tribunal ought to have believed the master and servant relationship between the petitioner on one hand and the respondents on the other, (ii) that in the event, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the petitioner was an employee of the 'contractor' then the 'contract' between the 'employer' and the 'contractor' was sham and bogus. Learned Advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to the documents produced by the respondents from Annexure-R1 to R7 and tried to demonstrate that they depict a 'pre-arrangement' so as to dislodge the claim of the petitioner.

(3.) This Court examined the matter in detail and also perused the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the matter. This Court is of the opinion that the petition has no merits and that the Tribunal has not committed any error in finding the matter without any merit and dismissing the same.